Beaumont City Council
October 18, 2022

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -28 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-8: Phase 1 Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 2023 12.52 121.26 128.18 0.51 34.98 10.25
Year 2024 238.18 67.16 156.81 0.54 41.10 12.19
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 2023 11.27 90.04 129.40 0.51 35.50 9.63
Year 2024 36.26 46.55 160.80 0.54 40.04 11.21
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Red uctions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI -E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ -1 and MM AQ-2. MM AQ -1 requires off-road equipment 50 horsepower or greater to meet CARB Tier 4 Final standards. MM AQ -2 requires the use of “Super -Compliant” low VOC paints.

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules for reducing fugitive dust, described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above and identified in Standard Conditions SC AQ -1.

Table 4.2-8 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for the ozone precursors NOX and ROG (VOC). The majority of NOX emissions occur from construction equipment exhaust and the majority of ROG emissions are generated during the architectural coatings phase of construction. MM AQ-1 requires the off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to meet CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards in order to reduce diesel exhaust construction emissions.

MM AQ-2 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints. Implementation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 would reduce construction impacts to below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Phase 2 Construction
Phase 2 construction is anticipated to begin in early 2026 and be completed in mid to late 2027.

Construction-generated emissions associated with Phase 2 the Project were calculated using the

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -29 4.2 | Air Quality
CARB -approved CalEEMod computer program. See Appendix A , Air Q uality Assessment, for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Phase 2 are summarized in Table 4.2-9, Phase 2 Construction- Related Emissions .

Table 4.2-9: Phase 2 Constru ction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 2023 2.96 27.98 26.93 0.06 8.94 4.99
Year 2024 75.38 15.85 23.65 0.06 3.45 1.31
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 2023 1.11 5.68 26.93 0.06 7.91 4.05
Year 2024 7.67 5.62 23.65 0.06 2.96 0.86
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Red uctions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI -E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ -1 and MM AQ-2. MM AQ -1 requires off-road equipment 50 horsepower or greater to meet CARB Tier 4 Final standards. MM AQ -2 requires the use of “Super -Compliant” low VOC paints.

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Table 4.2-9 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for ROG (VOC). The majority of ROG emissions are generated during the architectural coatings phase of construction. MM AQ-2 requires the Project to use “Super -Compliant” low VOC paints. Implementation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 would reduce construction impacts to below the SCAQMD’s thresholds.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operational Emissions
Phase 1 Unmitigated Operation Emissions
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings. Long -term operational emissions attributable to Phase 1 of the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-10, Unmitigated Phase 1 Operational Emissions. Table 4.2-10 shows that Project emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX. Therefore, regional operations emissions would result in a potentially significant long -term regional air quality impact.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -30 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-10: Unmitigated Phase 1 Operational Emissions Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Area Source Emissions 57.75 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.00 Energy Emissions 0.15 1.40 1.18 0.01 0.11 0.11
Mobile –Trucks 1.45 60.58 13.11 0.50 15.23 4.70
Mobile –Passenger Cars 5.86 5.33 118.81 0.32 28.96 7.29 Off-Road Emissions1 8.26 70.30 144.13 0.20 3.96 3.64 Emergency Generators 5.06 14.14 12.90 0.02 0.74 0.74 Total Emissions 78.53 151.75 290.58 1.05 49.01 16.48 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No

1. Although the PDFs require all electrically powered off -road equipment, “unmitigated” emissions from diesel equipment are conservatively shown for informational purposes.

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Operational emissions from Phase 1 of the Project would be associated with area sources, energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road emissions. Emissions from these categories are discussed below.
• Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products, on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site.

The default area source VOC emission factor developed for CalEEMod is based on a statewide factor and is not applicable to the Project. The entire Project would not use consumer products as specified by CalEEMod user guide. The warehouses may have small kitchen a reas and bathrooms that would use cleaning products, however the majority of the square footage for the Project would be used for warehousing/distribution. Negligible quantities of personal care products, home, lawn, and garden products, disinfectants, san itizers, polishes, cosmetics, and floor finishes would be used. Therefore, to estimate VOC emissions from the Project, the emission factor is reduced to 50 percent of its original value, to 9.9E -6 pounds VOC per day per square foot • Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. • Mobile Source. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NO X , PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM 10 and PM2.5 . However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -31 4.2 | Air Quality
• Project -generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project Traffic Impact Study and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Pr oject Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analyses, the Phase 1 of the Project would generate 10,050 daily trips, which includes 5,522 passenger car trips, 3,906 van delivery trips, and 622 truck trips. Employee commute trip lengths use CalEEMod default lengths for projects in Riverside County, delivery van trip lengths are assumed to be 60 miles round trip, truck trip lengths are assumed to be 33.2 miles one way.
• Off-Road Equipment. Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road equipment used during operational activities. For this project it was assumed that the warehouse would employ 51 forklifts and 2 off-highway trucks for loading and unloading goods.

Phase 1 Mitigated Operation Emissions
As noted above, Table 4.2-10 shows that unmitigated Phase 1 operational emission would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX. The majority of ROG emissions are from area and mobile sources and the majority of NOX emissions are from mobile sources. Mitigation measures would be r equired to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. CARB is addressing emissions from heavy duty vehicles throug h various regulatory programs including lower emission standards, restrictions on idling, the use of post‐combustion filter and catalyst equipment, and retrofits for diesel truck fleets. These programs are expected to result in significant reductions in RO G, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and CO emissions as they are fully implemented by 2023. Federal and State agencies regulate and enforce vehicle emission standards. It is not feasible for the City of Beaumont to effectively enforce a prohibition on trucks from entering the property that are otherwise permitted to operate in California and access other properties in the City, region, and State. Even if the City were to apply such a restriction, it would cause e-commerce operators using older truck fleets to travel to ot her facilities in the SCAB where the restriction does not apply, thereby resulting in no improvement to regional air quality. Based on data from CARB, most heavy‐duty trucks entering the Project site will meet or exceed 2010 model year emission standards when the Project becomes fully operational in 2024 as all trucks are required meet or exceed such standards by 2023. Specifically, according to CARB EMFAC inventories, approximately 50 percent of all instate heavy‐heavy duty trucks met the 2010 engine stand ard in 2019, 59 percent in 2020, 62 percent in 2021. Additionally, 65 percent and 90 percent of trucks are projected to meet the 2010 engine standard in 2022 and 2023 respectively.11
The Project includes numerous PDFs that would minimize emissions. For example, the Project would not include cold storage, which would reduce emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRUs). All cargo handling equipment (forklifts, yard trucks, etc.) is required to be electrically powered to reduce on-site criteria pollutant emissions. All heavy-duty vehicles registered in California and entering or operated on the Project site shall be model year 2010 or later. In order to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets and facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment, the Project would install 30 electric light -duty vehicle charging stations, install conduit for 59 electric light -duty vehicle charging stations, and designate 119 parking spaces for clean air/electric vehicle/vanpool parking. Additionally, the

11 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017, An Update to California On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory , November 9, 2017.

Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017_workshop_11_09_2017_final.pdf , accessed April 29, 2021.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -32 4.2 | Air Quality
Project would require future tenants to attend CARB training for record keeping and ensuring vehicles comply with CARB regulations and are in good condition, enroll in the EPA’s Sm artWay program, provide information on CARB’s Carl Moyer Voucher Incentive Program to upgrade fleets, include signage for truck routes and locate check-in points to ensure truck queues do not occur outside of the facility. Furthermore, the Project includes photocatalytic pavements as a PDF that would naturally decompose NO X. Although studies have shown that photocatalytic pavements can reduce pollution by 40 percent or more, to be conservative, no reduction credits from this PDF are applied.

MM AQ-3 through MM AQ-6 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, and MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.

Additionally, given the state’s clean truck rules and regulations aiming to accelerate the utilization and market penetration of ZE and NZE trucks, MM AQ-6 is required to incentivize the use of cleaner operating trucks to reduce air quality emissions with a goal of achieving ZE trucks beginning in 2030. MM AQ -6 requires the Project Applicant to provide $1.00 per square foot in funding for fleet upgrade financing to incentivize the use of cleaner operating trucks to reduce future emissions. It should be noted that as the nature, timing, and extent of the incorporation of ZE and NZE vehicles cannot be determined at this time, conservatively no emissions reduction credits from MM AQ-6 are applied.

Furthermore, Standard Conditions (SC) AQ-9 through SC AQ-11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment, and limit idling times. Table 4.2-11, Mitigated Phase 1 Operational Emissions shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-3 through MM AQ-6, operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds, therefore impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Table 4.2-11: Mitigated Phase 1 Operational Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM 10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM 2.5)
Area Source Emissions 51.76 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 Energy Emissions 0.10 0.92 0.77 0.01 0.07 0.07
Mobile – Truck 1.4 5 60.58 13.11 0.50 15 .23 4.70
Mobile – Passenger Cars1 5.81 5.13 113.33 0.31 27.43 6.91 -60 EV Trips2 -0.12 -0.11 -2.35 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Off-Road Emissions3 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Generators 5.06 14.14 12.9 0.02 0.74 0.74
Total Emissions 64.18 80.67 138.02 0.83 43.46 12.41
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No

1. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ -3.

2. The Project would provide a grant program for the purchase of 30 electric passenger cars for on -site employees per PDF AQ-16. Emissions reductions from PDF AQ -16 are provided for informational purposes.

3. Per the PDFs, operational off-road cargo handling equipment would be electrically powered.

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -33 4.2 | Air Quality
In addition, Rule 2305 requires the Project operator to directly reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions or to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities. Alternatively, e-commerce operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

E-commerce owners and operators are required to earn Warehouse Actions and Inves tments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Points each year. WAIRE points are a menu -based system earned by emission reduction measures. E-commerce operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measur es. WAIRE points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, Near -Zero Emissions and/or Zero- Emissions on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zero -emission charging and fueling infrastructure, or other options.

A preliminary WAIRE calculation has been conducted for the proposed Project. The Project would include rooftop solar (refer to MM GHG-1 in the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment) and nine zero emission yard trucks that would operate for approximately 8 hours per day, 365 days per year. Based on the SCAQMD WAIRE User Calculator the Project would have a WPCO of 1,122 and would earn 9,283 points. As a result, the Project would more than fulfill its WPCO and would bank 8,161 points 12.

Phase 2 Unmitigated Operation Emissions
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings. Long -term operational emissions attributable to Phase 1 of the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-12, Unmitigated Phase 2 Operational Emissions. Table 4.2-12 shows that Project emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, regional operations emissions for Phase 2 would result in a less than significant long -term regional air quality impact.

Similar to Phase 1, operational emissions from Phase 2 of the Project would be associated with area sources, energy sources , and mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road emissions. Emissions from these categories are described above. Phase 2 Project -generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project Traffic Impact Study and incorporat ed into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Project Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analyses, the Phase 2 of the Project would generate 485 daily trips, which include employee commutes to work, retail customers, and delivery trips. Ca lEEMod default trips lengths and vehicle fleet mix for projects in Riverside County were used in the analysis of Phase 2 mobile source emissions.

12 Note that this calculation is preliminary and provided for informational purposes. The WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation is determined by the actual number of truck trips to the facility based on logs of truck trips submitted on January 1 after the firs t year of operation. The trip rates that SCAQMD uses in the WAIRE User Calculator would be slightly different than what is used in the Project’s Traffic St udy.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -34 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-12: Unmitigated Phase 2 Operational Emissions Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM 10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM 2.5)
Area Source Emissions 3.53 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 Energy Emissions 0.37 3.44 2.89 0.02 0.26 0.26
Mobile Emissions 25.19 28.28 208.84 2.62 54.18 18.46 Total Emissions 29.10 31.72 211.80 2.64 54.44 18.72
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Overlapping Emissions (Phase 1 Operations + Phase 2 Construction ) As the Project would be constructed in phases, Phase 1 has the potential to be operational during Phase 2 construction. The overlapping emissions of Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 construction are shown in Table 4.2-13, Project Overlapping Emissions. Table 4.2-13 shows that total overlapping emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX. The majority of the Project’s emission exceedances are from mobile sources that cannot feasibly be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold. Emissions from motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. However, numerous PDFs and mitigation measures have been included to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible and are discussed in detail below.

Table 4.2-13: Project Overlapping Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM 10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM 2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions
Phase 1 Operations1 78.53 151.75 290.58 1.05 49.01 16.48 Phase 2 Construction 2 75.38 27.98 26.93 0.06 8.94 4.99 Total Unmitigated Overlapping
Emissions 153.91 179.73 317.51 1.11 57.95 21.47
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Phase 1 Operations3 64.18 80.67 138.02 0.83 43.46 12.41 Phase 2 Construction 2 7.67 5.68 26.93 0.06 7.91 4.05 Total Mitigated Overlapping
Emissions 71.85 86.35 164.95 0.89 51.37 16.46
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No

1. Refer to Table 11 (Unmitigated Phase 1 Operation Emissions).

2. Refer to Table 10 (Phase 2 Construction-Related Emissions). Note that Phase 2 construction would occur in 202 6 and 2027. This table provides the maximum daily emissions from each year .

3. Refer to Table 12 (Mitigated Phase 1 Operational Emissions).

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -35 4.2 | Air Quality
Project Buildout (Phase 1 + Phase 2)
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the total Project are summarized in Table 4.2-14, Project Buildout Mitigated Operational Emissions.

Table 4.2-14: Project Buildout Mitigated Operational Emissions Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM 10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM 2.5)
Area Source Emissions 55.29 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.01 0.01 Energy Emissions 0.47 4.36 3.66 0.03 0.33 0.33
Mobile Emissions 32.48 93.99 335.28 3.43 96.84 30.07 Off-Road Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Generators 5.06 14.14 12.90 0.02 0.74 0.74 Total Emissions 93.27 112.51 352.17 3.48 97.92 31.15 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

As indicated in Table 4.2-14, total operational emissions for the Project at buildout would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX . The majority of the Project’s emission exceedances are from mobile sources that cannot feasibly be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold. Emissions from motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. However, numerous PDFs and mitigation measures have been included to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

MM AQ-3 through MM AQ -7 have been identified to reduce operational emissions from mobile sources.

MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit . MM AQ-4 requires charging stations and infrastructure to support future electric vehicle demand to reduce mobile emissions. MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use and includes signage to report violations and MM AQ -6 is required to incentivize the use of cleaner ope rating trucks to reduce air quality emissions and would facilitate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2035 . Table 4.2-14 shows that despite numerous PDFs that would minimize emissions and the implementation of MM AQ-3 through MM AQ-6, for VOC (ROG) and NOX emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Short -Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project -specific SCAQMD regional thr esholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds,

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -36 4.2 | Air Quality
the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 4.2-8 and Table 4.2-9 above, construction of Phase 1 of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROG a nd NOX while construction of Phase 2 would exceed the construction-related emissions threshold for ROG. However, with the implementation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 construction impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels . Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

Cumulative Long -Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality condi tions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 4.2-11, Table 4.2-13, and Table 4.2-14, the Project operational emissions (primarily mobile source emissions) would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for ROG and NOX despite the implementation of mitigation. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. PDFs, Standard Conditions, and implementation of operational MM AQ-3 through MM AQ-6 would reduce emissions by reducing the number of employee vehicles onsite, facilitating EV infrastructure, requiring electric hookups at all loading bays, and reducing the amount of time trucks spend idling. While the Project has some control over mobile source efficiencies, the majority of the mobile source emissions are beyond the Project’s control. Therefore, no additional feasible mitigation measures beyond MMs AQ-3 through AQ-6 are available to further reduce emissions, and impacts would remain significant.

Furthermore, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) is req uired for all existing and proposed warehouses greater than 100,000 square feet. Warehouse operators are required to implement additional emission reduction strategies or pay mitigation fee to reduce emissions. As noted above, a preliminary WAIRE calculation has been conducted for the proposed Project and the Project would more than fulfill its WPCO and would bank 8,161 points with implementation of MM GHG-1 (refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) requiring rooftop solar and PDF AQ-2 requiring ZE yard trucks .

Standard Conditions and Requirements:

Standard C onditions are existing requirements and standard conditions that are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical standard conditions and requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. Because

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -37 4.2 | Air Quality
Standard Conditions are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be either PDFs or Mitigation Measures.

SC AQ -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifica tions require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
▪ All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
▪ All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
▪ Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SC AQ -2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.

SC AQ -3 Require construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

SC AQ -4 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

SC AQ -5 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Requirements (Section 17.06.030 of the City’s Municipal Code).

SC AQ -6 Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -38 4.2 | Air Quality
SC AQ -7 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition was te in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

SC AQ -8 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

SC AQ -9 Provide designated parking for any combination of low -emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are required to be desig nated in accordance with Section 5.106.5.2, Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

SC AQ -10 Provide at least six percent of the total parking spaces to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment in accordance with Section 5.106.5.3.2, Multiple Charging Space Requirements, of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

SC AQ -11 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Prior to issuance of Phase 1 and Phase 2 grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Beaumont to demonstrate the following:
▪ All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off -road emissions standards.

Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. ▪ Construction equipment shall be properly maintained according to manufacturer specifications.
▪ All construction equipment and delivery vehicles shall be turned off whe n not in use, or limit on-site idling for no more than 5 minutes in any 1 hour. ▪ On-site electrical hook ups to a power grid shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills, and compressors, where feasible, to reduce the need for diesel powered electric generators.

MM AQ-2 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -39 4.2 | Air Quality
Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of Phase 1 and Phase 2 building permit s , the Beaumont Building and Safety Department shall confirm the plans include the following specifications:
▪ All architectural coatings will be super -complia nt low VOC paints. ▪ Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water -based and oil-based paints. ▪ Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
▪ For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center ( www.cleanup.org) .
▪ Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. ▪ Keep all paint - and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
▪ Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require paint ing and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable. ▪ Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of Phase 1 and Phase 2 occupancy permits (unless otherwise specified), the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
▪ Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options .
▪ Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the project site (Phase 1 only).
▪ Each building shall provide secure bicycle storage space equivalent to two percent of the automobile parking spaces provided (Phase 1 only). ▪ Each building shall provide a minimum of two shower and changing facilities within 200 yards of a building entrance (Phase 1 only).

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -40 4.2 | Air Quality
▪ Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehi cle of a different type than they use day-to-day.
▪ Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride -matching service. ▪ Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as pre ferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.
▪ Provide meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
▪ Each building shall provide preferred parking for electric, low‐emitti ng and fuel- efficient vehicles equivalent to at least eight percent of the required number of parking spaces.

MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of Phase 1 building permits , the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
▪ The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric -powered engines. ▪ The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed in the future to supply power to trailers with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods.

Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to the loading docks determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check as the logical location(s) to receive trailers with TRUs.

MM AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1, the Planning Department shall confirm that a ll truck access gates and loading docks within the project site shall have a sign posted that states:
▪ Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. ▪ For non-essential idling, t ruck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the Calif ornia Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -41 4.2 | Air Quality
▪ Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
▪ Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the importance of being a good neighbor by not parking in residential areas.

MM AQ-6 Prior to the issuance of Phase 1 occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements require t he Project Applicant to provide $1.00 per square foot in funding for fleet upgrade financing to be used over the term of their lease on Zero Emissions (ZE) and Near Zero Emissions (NZE) delivery vans or trucks. This requirement shall apply to new leases only (not renewals) and for the first 10 years of the Project’s life. The funding shall be provided in the form of lease allowance/concession. The allowance shall be a reimbursement once ZE or NZE medium/heavy duty vehicles are purchased and can be used at any time during the lease term (i.e., the landlord shall reimburse the tenant once the tenant provides receipt of paid invoice for the order). If a tenant leases their fleet, this allowance shall also cover the cost to lease ZE or NZE trucks. This measure would also facilitate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305.

Level of Significance
Significant and unavoidable impact. Construction emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 have been reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2. However, operational impacts from mobile sources remain significant for Phase 1 and Project Buildout even after the inc orporation of MM AQ -3 through MM AQ -6. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce mobile emission impacts to less than significant.

Impact 4.2-3 Would the proposed project, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The Project will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes industrial uses and would begin construction in the second qua rter of 2023 and be operational by the third quarter 2024. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 1 construction site is a residential building located approximately 365 feet (111 meters) to the east of the Project site. Phase 2 of the Project is loca ted in the northeastern portion of the Project site and would include retail uses. Phase 2 is anticipated to begin construction in early 2026 and be operational by 2027. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 2 construction site is a residential building located 67 feet (20 meters) to the east of the Project site.

To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction.

LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhanceme nt Initiative (I -4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -42 4.2 | Air Quality
(dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment , Table 4.2-15, Equipment- Specific Grading Rates is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.

The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Banning Airport (SRA 29) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO2 , CO, PM10, and PM2.5 . The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. CalEEMod construction modeling for Phase 1 and Phase 2 anticipates that both phases will use similar equipment. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4.0 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 4.0-acre threshold were interpolated and utiliz ed for this analysis.

Table 4.2-15: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Phase 1 Grading

Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Phase 2 Grading
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Phase 1 Construction Emissions
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on - site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 1 construction area is a residential building located approximately 365 feet (111 meters) to the east of the Project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters.

Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 111 meters were interpolated and utilized in t his analysis.

Table 4.2-16, Localized Significance of Phase 1 Construction Emissions presents the results of localized emissions during each construction activity during Phase 1 after incorporating mitigation measures required under Impact 4.2-2. In addition, building construction, paving, and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Table 4.2-16 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Phase 1 construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -43 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-16: Localized Significance of Phase 1 Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition 2.00 23.28 29.31 4.49
Site Preparation 2.02 20.87 7.73 4.00
Grading 3.30 33.00 4.01 1.58
Building Construction 2.23 17.46 0.04 0.04
Paving 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43
Architectural Coating 0.13 1.83 0.01 0.01
Combined Building Construction,
Paving, and Architectural Coating 11.88 33.92 0.52 0.48 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4.0 acres at 111 meters) 311 5,342 102 25 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Phase 2 Construction Emissions
The nearest s ensitive receptor to the Phase 2 construction area is a residential building located approximately 67 feet (20 meters) to the east of the Project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors loca ted at 25 meters or less were utilized in this analysis. Table 4.2-17, Localized Significance of Phase 2 Construction Emissions presents the results of localized emissions during each construction activity during Phase 2 after incorporating mitigation meas ures required under Impact 4.2-2. In addition, building construction, paving, and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Table 4.2-17 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Phase 2 construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Table 4.2-17: Localized Significance of Phase 2 Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition 2.00 23.28 0.06 0.06
Site Preparation 2.02 20.87 7.73 4.00
Grading 3.30 33.00 3.69 1.53
Building Construction 2.23 17.46 0.04 0.04
Paving 1.22 17.30 0.04 0.04
Architectural Coating 0.13 1.83 0.01 0.01
Combined Building Construction,
Paving, and Architectural Coating 3.58 36.59 0.09 0.09 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4.0 acres at 25 meters) 207 2,392 17 9
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -44 4.2 | Air Quality
As Shown in Table 4.2-16 and Table 4.2-17, construction emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project are below SCAQMD LST. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project includes warehouses, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions for both Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 operations.

Phase 1 Operations
LSTs thresholds for receptors located at 111 meters in SRA 29 were utilized in this analysis of Phase 1 operations because the closest receptors to the Phase 1 area is located approximately 365 feet (111 meters) to the east. Although the Phase 1 area of the Project site is approximately 142 acres , the 5-acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.

The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst -case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-18, Localized Significance of Phase 1 Operational Emissions conservatively include all on-site Project-related stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts and yard trucks) and three percent of the Phase 1-related mobile sources , since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site. Table 4.2-18 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during Phase 1 operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

In addition, SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 will require the Project to directly reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions, or to otherwise facilitate emissions a nd exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this analysis is not taking credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed.

Table 4.2-18: Localized Significance of Phase 1 Operational Emissions Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
On -Site and Mobile Source Emissions1 2.90 4.82 1.35 0.42 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 111 meters) 344 5,342 27 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

1. Includes all on-site and three percent of warehouse mobile source emissions.

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Phase 2 Operations
LSTs thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters in SRA 29 were utilized in th is analysis of Phase 2 operations because the closest receptors to the Phase 2 area is located approximately 67 feet (20 meters)

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -45 4.2 | Air Quality
to the east. Although the Phase 3 area of the Project site is approximately 13 acres, the 5 -acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.

For a worst -case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-19, Localized Significance of Phase 2 Operational Emissions conservatively include all on-site Project-related stationary sources and three percent of the Phase 2-related mobile sources after incorporating mitigation measures required under Impact 4.2-2. Table 4.2-19 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during Phase 2 operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

In addition, SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 will require the Project to directly reduce NO X and particulate matter emissions, or to otherwise facilitate emissions and exposu re reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this analysis is not taking credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed.

Table 4.2-19: Localized Significance of Phase 2 Operational Emissions Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
On -Site Emissions 3.45 2.96 0.27 0.27
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters) 236 2,817 6 3
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Project Buildout (Phase 1 and Phase 2 Emissions Combined) Table 4.2-18 and Table 4.2-19 show that emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 individually do not exceed operational LSTs. Table 4.2-20, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions at Project Buildout shows the combined operation emissions of the entire Project. For Project Buildout, the nearest receptor is the residential building located 67 feet (20 meters) from the Phase 2 boundary. In addition, although the entire Project site is approximately 188 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was used for the entire Project site. LSTs increase with the size of the site, therefore applying a 5 -acre LST threshold is an extremely conservative approach.

Table 4.2-20: Localized Significance of Opera tional Emissions at Project Buildout Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM 10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM 2.5)
On -Site and Mobile Source Emissions1 6.35 7.78 1.62 0.69 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters) 236 2,817 6 3
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

1. Includes all on-site and three percent of warehouse mobile source emissions.

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -46 4.2 | Air Quality
As shown in Table 4.2-20, emissions generated onsite by the Project would not exceed the LST at the sensitive receptor located approximately 67 feet (20 meters) to the east of the site. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during operational activities.

In addition, SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 will require the Project to directly reduce NO X and particulate matter emissions, or to otherwise facilitate emissions and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. As noted above, a preliminary WAIRE calculation has been conducted for the proposed Project and the Project would more than fulfill its WPCO and would bank 8,161 points with implementation of MM GHG-1 (refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions ) requiring rooftop solar and PDF AQ-2 requiring ZE yard trucks .

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or expl ain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program13 was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an a dequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.

Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality v iolation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.

NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.

Breathing ground-level O3 can result in health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or disc omfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O 3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to ast hma triggers.

According the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP, O3 , NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled in the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor

13 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e. PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR

51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -47 4.2 | Air Quality
vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower -emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2 016 AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control strategy to meet the 8 -hour O3 standard in 2023 would lead to sufficient NOX emission reductions to attain the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the O3 standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.

The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM 2.5 concentrations. NOX -emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refiner ies, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement wit h cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology -forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies.

The 2016 AQMP also emphasizes that beginning in 2012, continued implementation of previously adopted regulations will lead to NOX emission reductions of 68 percent by 2023 and 80 percent by 2031. With the addition of 2016 AQMP proposed regulatory measures, a 30 percent reduction of NOX from stationary sources is expected in the 15-year period between 2008 and 2023. This is in addition to significant NOX reductions from stationary sources achieved in the decades prior to 2008.

There are significant challenges with correlating specific health effects that will occur as a result of a project’s significant criteria air pollutant emissions . Generally, models that correlate criteria air pollutant concentrations with specific health effects focus on regulatory decision -making that will apply throughout an entire air basin or region. These models focus on the region -wide health effects of pollutants so that regulators can assess the costs and benefits of adopting a proposed regulation that applies to an entire category of air pollutant sources, rather than the health effects related to emissions from a specific proposed project or source. Because of the scale of these analyses, any one project is likely to have only very small incremental effects which may be difficult to differentiate from the effects of air pollutant concentrations in an entire air basin. In addition, such modeling efforts are costly, and the value of a project-specific analysis may be modest in relation to that cost. Furthermore, the results, while costly to produce, may not be particularly useful. For regional pollutants, it is difficult to trace a particular project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to a specific health effect. Moreover, the modeled results may be misleading because the margin of error in such modeling is large eno ugh that, even if the modeled results report a given health effect, the model is sufficiently imprecise that the actual effect may differ from the

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -48 4.2 | Air Quality
reported results; that is, the modeled results suggest precision, when in fact available models cannot be that precise on a project level.

As discussed above, the mass emissions thresholds developed by SCAQMD and used by CEQA lead agencies throughout southern California to determine potential significance of project -related regional changes in the environment are not directly indicative of exceedances of applicable ambient air standards.

Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of O3 or PM. The effects on ground-level ambient concentrations of pollutants that may be breathed by people are also influenced by the spatial and temporal patterns of the emission sources. In other words, the effect on O3 and PM concentrations from a given mass of pollutants emitted in one location may vary from the effect if that same mass of pollutants was emitted in an entirely different location in the SCAB. The same effect may be observed when the daily and seasonal variation of emissions is taken into account. Regional -scale photochemical modeling, typically performed only for NAAQS attainment demonstration and rule promulgation, account for these changes in the spatial, temporal, and chemical nature of regional emissions.

Emissions from the construction and operation of the proposed Project would vary by time of day, month, and season, and the majority of Project -related emissions, being generated by mobile sources (cars and trucks) driving to and from the site, would be emitted throughout a wide area defined by the origins and destinations of people traveling to and from the proposed Project. As SCAQMD has stated “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.”14
Specifically, for extremely large regional projects, the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O 3 . Based on its recent experiences applying regional scale models to relatively small increase in emissions, SCAQMD stated in its Amicus Brief in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case: “[A] project emitting only 10 tons per year of NOX or VOC is small enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the regional air quality models that are currently used to determine ozone levels.”15 The Brief makes it clear that SCAQMD does not believe that there must be a quantification of a project's health risks in CEQA documents prepared for individual projects. Any attempt to quantify the proposed Project's health risks would be considered unreliable and misleading. Also, the Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O3 -related health impacts. Therefore, the Projec t’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide level.

As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant (refer to Table 4.2-16 and Table 4.2-17). The LSTs represent the maximum

14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 2015. 15 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 2015. p. 1

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -49 4.2 | Air Quality
emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate marg in of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioner s with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Although it may be misleading and unreliable to attempt to specifically and numericall y quantify the Project’s health risks, this analysis provides extensive information concerning the Project's potential health risks. While the Project is expected to exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric regional mass daily thresholds for ROG and NOX , this does not in itself constitute a significant health impact to the population adjacent to the Project and within the SCAB . The reason for this is that the mass daily thresholds are in pounds per day emitted into the air whereas health effects are determined based on the concentration of emissions in the air at particular receptor (e.g., parts per million by volume of air, or micrograms per cubic meter of air).

The NAAQS and CAAQS were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions. As stated earlier, the mass emission thresholds were established primarily in conjunction with federal permitting “major source” t hresholds. If emissions were below these “de minimis” emission rates, then the proposed Project is presumed to conform with the NAAQS.16 While based on the status of an air basin level of attainment of the health -based NAAQS, emissions in excess of the mas s emission thresholds from one project does not mean the air basin would experience measurably higher ground level concentrations, or more frequent occurrences of ground level concentrations in exceedance of standards, or delay timely attainment of a particular NAAQS.

Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. B ecause of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health -related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed p roject.

It should also be noted that this analysis identifies health concerns related to particulate matter, CO, O3, and NO2. Table 4.2-1 includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects.

Thus, this analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making. Due to the uncertainty in the relationship between project -level mass emissions and regional ozone formation as well as limitations with currently available technical tools, the resulting health effects associ ated with the Project

16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Frequent Questions about General Conformity. Available: https://www.epa.gov/general- conformity/frequent-questions-about-general-conformity. Accessed July 2019.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -50 4.2 | Air Quality
cannot be identified. Given this is speculative, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn with respect to potential health effects from the criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Project .

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections . Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of appr oximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 18,993 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than signific ant.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter The Project would be developed in two phases. Construction of the Project would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of required off-road diesel equipment required. T he amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards).

Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long -term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not identified short -term health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -51 4.2 | Air Quality
Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel PM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions . Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the Project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of DPM any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, consider ing the relatively short duration of DPM -emitting construction activity at any one location, and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions.

A Healt h Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for demolition; site preparation (e.g., clearing , grading); building construction; paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On -road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materi als and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

PM10 exhaust construction emissions rates in grams per second were calculated from the total annual on- site exhaust emissions reported in CalEEMod during construction. Maximum (worst case) PM 10 exhaust construction emissions over the entire construction period were used in AERMOD, a U.S. EPA‐approved dispersion model, to approximate construction DPM emissions. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐ source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height.

Uniform Cartesian receptors were used to evaluate the locations of the maximally exposed sensitive receptors. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Banning Monitoring Station provided by the SCAQMD was selected as being the most representative meteorology. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD for the Project. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.17 Risk levels were calculated based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015).

SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten in-one-million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.

17 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air - quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance, accessed October 2021.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -52 4.2 | Air Quality
The construction phase HRA was conducted for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project (see Appendix B, Health Risk A ssessment for HRA modeling result s). The surrounding land use is a mix of vacant land, residential, and retail. Using AERMOD, residential properties and potential worker locations with high emission concentrations were identified.

Phase 1 Construction HRA Results . Results of the assessment indicate that without implementation of MM AQ-1, Phase 1 construction would result in a cancer risk of approximately 1.75 in one million for residents and 0.21 in one million for workers which is below SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would also be below the SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and an acute hazard index of 0.12 for residents and with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.002 and an acute hazard index of 0.16 for offsite workers. Although the risk assessment shows that unmitigated Phase 1 construction emissions ar e below SCAQMD thresholds, MM AQ -1 which requires construction equipment to meet CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards to reduce NOX emissions, which would also DPM emissions. Therefore, although unmitigated Phase 1 construction does not exceed thresholds, for informational purposes the reductions attributed to MM AQ-1 were calculated. With the implementation of MM AQ-1, the maximum cancer risk from Project construction would decrease to 0.12 per million for residents and 0.01 per million for workers . Additionally, chronic and acute hazards would be lowered to 0.0001 and 0.008 for residents and 0.0001 and 0.011 for workers respectively.

Phase 2 Construction HRA Results . Phase 2 construction would be located closer to sensitive receptors than Phase 1. The Project HRA (Appendix B) indicates that the unmitigated concentrations of DPM during Phase 2 construction would result in a maximum cancer risk of approximately 22.6 in o ne million for residents which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in a million and 0.11 in one million for workers which is below the threshold. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below the SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.01 and an acute hazard index of 0.85 for residents and with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and an acute hazard index of 0.55 for workers. As discussed under Phase 1 construction, MM AQ-1 would require construction equipment to meet CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards which would reduce DPM emissions. With the implementation of MM AQ-1 the maximum cancer risk from Project construction would decrease to 1.21 per million for residents and 0.006 per million for workers. Additionally, chronic and a cute hazards would be lowered to 0.0007 and 0.05 for residents and 0.0001 and 0.03 for workers respectively. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM AQ -1.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Operational Diesel Particulate Matter An operational phase HRA was also conducted for this Project (see Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment).

Analysis included both on-site and off-site impacts from the diesel trucks accessing the wareh ouse development on nearby residential and worker receptors. Phase 1 of the Project includes warehouse land uses that are anticipated to generate 659 daily truck trips. Phase 2 involves commercial development and would not include TAC sources during operations.

Truck DPM emissions were estimated using PM 10 exhaust emission factors generated with CARB’s On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Model (EMFAC) 2021. EMFAC is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor ve hicles that operate on highways, freeways, and

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -53 4.2 | Air Quality
local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on‐ road mobile sources. EMFAC, incorporates regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding t he distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by speed, and number of starts per day.

For this Project, annual average PM10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC for vehicles in the SCAQMD within the South Coast portion of Riverside County. EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed, temperature, and relative humidity. Truck emissions were based on the first poss ible year of operations for a fleet mix of various aged vehicles, as opposed to average emissions over a 30-year window. Trucks were assumed to travel at a speed of 55 miles per hour (mph) along Cherry Valley Boulevard and 15 mph for on-site truck travel.

As with the evaluation of construction risk, a ir dispersion modeling for operations was performed using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.18
Idling emiss ions were represented in the model via line volume sources along each loading dock and 15 minutes of idling 19 for each truck was assumed. Truck travel emissions were represented in the model via line volume sources along local roads and inside the facility where the trucks are expected to travel.

Trucking routes were determined per the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed Project.

Note that the concentration estimate developed using this methodology is conservative and is not a specific prediction of the actual concentrations that would occur at the Project site any one point in time.

Actual 1-hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the number and type of vehicles and equipment operating at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology.

A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 30‐year exposure scenario using the approach described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (February 2015) and the daily breathing rates, age sensitivity factors, exposure duration, and fraction of time at home specified in the SCAQMD , Permit Application Package “N” Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212 Version 8.1; refer to Appendix B for a full discussion of modeling assumptions and calculations . The pollutant concentrations are then used to estimate the long-term cancer health risk to an individual as well as the non-cancer chronic health index. SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten in -one-million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.

18 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air - quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance, accessed October 2021. 19 An idling time of 15 minutes per truck has been used per SCAQMD recommendations. Although the Project is required to comply w ith CARB’s idling limit of 5 minutes, the SCAQMD recommends the on-site idling emissions should be estimated for 15 minutes of truck idling, which would take into account on-site idling that occurs while the trucks are waiting to pull up to the truck bays, idling at the bays, idling at check-in and check -out, etc.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -54 4.2 | Air Quality
The cancer and chronic health risks are based on the annual average concentration of PM 10 (used as a proxy for DPM). As DPM does not have short-term toxicity values, acute risks were conservatively evaluated using hourly PM10 concentrations and the REL for acrolein. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015).

As discussed previously, the Project includes PDF AQ-2, which requires all outdoor cargo handling equipment shall be powered by electricity. Although it is not considered mitigation, diesel equipment was modeled for the unmitigated scenario and electric equipment was modeled for the mitigated scenario to demonstrate the effectiveness of PDF AQ-2. In addition to these sources, emission would also be generated by backup generator associated with each warehouse building.

As discussed in the Project HRA (see Appendix B, Health Risk A ssessment), operations without PDF AQ-2 at the closest residence would result in a maximum cancer risk of 103.0 in one million, which would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The maximum worker cancer risk would be 65.9 in one million, which also exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. I mplementation of PDF AQ-2 would reduce the maximum cancer risk at a residence to 1.41 in one million and 0.82 in a million for workers, both of which below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant at nearby sensitive receptors with the implementation of PDF AQ-2. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions in future years. As such, the carcinogenic risk would not exceed 10 in one million and impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant.

Acute and chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index associated with the Project would be 0.05 and 0.34, respectively. As a result, non‐carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Combined Construction and Operational Diesel Particulate Matter The project HRA also calculated the combined risk of construction and operational exhaust emissions.

Based on OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines, the exposure duration for a resident is 30 years, beginning with the third trimester. Based on the Project schedule, Phase 1 construction would begin in 2023 and be completed in 2024. Following construction, the three warehouse s in Phase 1 are assumed to be fully operational and generating emissions. Phase 2 construction will begin in 2026 and be completed in 2027, during this time Phase 1 operational emissions from the warehouses would overlap with the Phase 2 construction emis sions. Following the completion of Phase 2, emissions would only be generated by Phase 1 because Phase 2 operations does not include any TAC sources. The maximum unmitigated combined cancer risk for residents with 30 years of exposure is 63 per million, wh ich exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in million. With MM AQ-1 and PDF AQ-2 incorporated, the cancer risk would be reduced to 0.98 in one million which is below the SCAQMD threshold and would result in a less than significant impact.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -55 4.2 | Air Quality
The combined unmitiga ted worker cancer risk would also exceed SCAQMD’s 10 in one million threshold.

Based on OEHHA methodology worker exposure begins at age 16 and includes eight hours per day five days per week for 25 years. As discussed previously, Phase 1 would begin constr uction in 2023 and operations will begin in 2024. During Phase 2 construction, both construction emissions and Phase 1 operation emissions would be combined. Following completion of Phase 2 construction, the emissions for Phase 1 operations would continue. The unmitigated cancer risk for workers would be 60.9 per million, with mitigation and PDFs, the cancer risk would be reduced to 0.77 per million and impacts would be less than significant.

It should be noted that carcinogenic risks are calculated as the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen and are calculated using conservative modeling approaches that overestimate risk at the low exposure range predic ted by the model. The oral and inhalation cancer slope factors are used to calculate the theoretical increased risk of an individual developing cancer based on the estimated daily exposure or dose, averaged over a lifetime.

As shown in the Project HRA, the impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant at nearby residential communities and surrounding businesses.

The maximum unmitigated chronic and acute hazard index for residents would be 0.03 and 0.97, respectively and the hazard index for workers would be 0.05 and 0.62. Therefore, unmitigated non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur. With implementation of MM AQ-1 and PDF AQ-2, the chronic and acute hazard index would be further reduced to 0.0009 and 0.08 for residents and 0.0007 and 0.07 for workers respectively.

Non-carcinogenic hazards related to the Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Impact 4.2-4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -56 4.2 | Air Quality
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a su bstantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project ’s construction-related activities would be less than significant.

Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance
No Impact.

4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
Regional
In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project -level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects in the local area include new development and general growth in the project area. The greatest source of emissions in the SCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SCAB), SCAQMD considers a project cumulative ly significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.

Construction
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under both the California and federal standards and nonattainment for PM 10 and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the federal standards . Ozone is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOCs ; thus, NOX and VOCs are precursor to O3.

Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. The project would not make a cumulative considerable contribution to PM 2.5 or PM10, but air quality from VOCs would potentially be impacted during construction activities. However, as discussed under Impact 4.2-2, implementation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 would reduce project -related construction emissions to below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds on a project and cumulative basis. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with incorporation of mitigation.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -57 4.2 | Air Quality
Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the Project, after incorporation of mitigation would still result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for R OG and NOX Therefore, the air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.

Localized
Under SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the project -specific significance threshold of 10 in a million are considered to be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD 2003). Per the MATES V study, the proposed project is in an area that has an estimated cancer risk of about 286 in a million.20 Project related construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 10 in a million threshold. As a result, the project would not cumulatively contribute to the overall elevated levels of DPM in the SCAB. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to health risk impacts in the SCAB is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.2.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Even with implementation of regulatory requirements, standard conditions of approval and implementation of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in unavoidable significant impacts with respect to air qua lity plan consistency (Impact 4.2-1) and operational emissions (Impact 4.2-2).

4.2.8 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, 2018.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, 2009.

California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2015 to 2017, 2019.

California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005.

California Air Resources Board, Appendix B: Emissions Estimation Methodology of On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. Table II -7. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/drayage_trucks/appbf.pdf .

20 South Coast Air Quality Management District, MATES V Estimated Risk, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23/page/home/?data_id=dataSource_105 - a5ba9580e3aa43508a793fac819a5a4d%3A315&views=view_38%2Cview_1

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.2 -58 4.2 | Air Quality
California Air Resources Board, Current Air Quality Standards, 2016.

California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel - Fueled Engines and Vehicles, 2000.

City of Beaumont, City of Beaumont General Plan, 2007.

City of Beaumont, Code of Ordinances, 2018.

EXETER Property Group, Conceptual Site Plan, June 2021.

Federal Highway Administration, Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, 2016.

Kimley-Horn. 2022. Air Quality Assessment .

Kimley-Horn. 2022. Health Risk Assessment .

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, 2015.

Ralph Propper, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alvaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo, Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology, 2015.

Southern California Association of Governments, 2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), 2020.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2009.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V, 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table , 2016.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, 2019.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2013.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-1 4.3 | Biological Resources

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the effects on biological resources that may result from implementation of Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Project (Project). The following discussion addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected areas, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts of the Project, and recommends measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts anticipated from implementation of the Project. This includes construction and operations of the e-commerce and commercial buildings. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to biological resources are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with the implementation of the Project.

The setting, context, and impact analysis in this section are based primarily on biological resource studies conducted by Rock Biological Consulting that are contained in Appendix C:
• Rock Biological Consulting (RBC). February 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Project Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report (Appendix C1);
• RBC. November 2021. Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR) (Appendix C2); and
• RBC. February 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Project DBESP Report (Appendix C3).

4.3.2 Environmental Setting
Project Location
The Project site is located south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, north of Brookside Avenue, and east/northeast of Interstate (I)-10, within the City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. The Project site is bounded by undeveloped land to the north and west, rural residences with livestock pens to the east, and residential development to the south. The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the review area is 33.965141, -117.019732. The Project site sits on Township 2 South, Range 1 West, and Section 30 within the El Casco 7.5-minute quadrangle, as mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Topography
The Project site is primarily flat with elevations ranging from approximately 2,403 to 2,584 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with areas of lower topography within the drainages on the south and southwestern portions of the Project site and between rolling hills along the northwestern boundary of the Project site. Drainage patterns on-site trend east to west following a gradual decrease in elevation in the same direction.

Soils
Based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils data map seven soil map units, outlined below in Table 4.3-1, Soil Mapped within Project Site and Exhibit 4.3-1, NRCS Soils Survey Data and NWI,

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-2 4.3 | Biological Resources
occur within the Project site. For detailed descriptions of each soil map unit type, see the ARDR in Appendix C2.

Table 4.3-1: Soil Mapped within Project Site
Soil Map Unit Soil
Series/Unit
Geomorphic
Surface Taxonomic Class
NRCS
Hydric
Status
Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, eroded
Greenfield Alluvial fans,
terraces
Coarse-loamy, mixed, active,
thermic Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, eroded
Greenfield Alluvial fans,
terraces
Coarse-loamy, mixed, active,
thermic Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes, eroded
Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive,
thermic Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8
percent slopes, eroded
Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive,
thermic Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, severely eroded
Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive,
thermic Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes, severely eroded
Ramona Alluvial fans,
terraces
Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive,
thermic Typic Haploxeralfs
No
Terrace escarpments N/A Terraces N/A No
Source: RBC. July 2021. Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. Table 2.

Aquatic Resources
Field Visits
An initial jurisdictional assessment field visit was conducted on April 22, 2021 and an aquatic resources delineation field visit on June 3, 2021. An additional aquatic resources delineation field visit was conducted on June 7, 2021. Areas with depressions, drainage patterns, and/or wetland vegetation within the review area were evaluated, with focus on the presence of defined channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. While in the field, potential aquatic resources were recorded using a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with a level of accuracy ranging from 8 to 24 feet. Field data was further refined using aerial photographs and topographic maps with one-foot contours to ensure accuracy. For detailed information on delineation methodology, see the ARDR in Appendix C2. Field staff further investigated several areas with potential aquatic resource indicators, including basins, swales, erosional features, and an abandoned ditch, as described in Section 6.4 of the ARDR. These features are not anticipated to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulations, policy, and/or guidance and therefore are not discussed in this section. The aquatic resources acreages and linear feet below represent the existing conditions during the time of the field surveys.

Project Site Delineated Aquatic Resources
The results provided below include the extent of delineated aquatic resources within the Project site based on observed field indicators of potential waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and CDFW streambed and associated wetland and/or riparian habitat per the methodologies discussed in Section 3 of the ARDR (Appendix C2).

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-3 4.3 | Biological Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Non-wetland water (NWW)-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 displayed clear indicators of an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM), such as a break in bank slope, change in average sediment texture, and change in vegetation species and cover between the drainage and adjacent uplands. However, these features did not meet the three wetland parameters.

As such, NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 may be considered non-wetland waters of the U.S. given the presence of an OHWM.

Approximately 0.78 acre (7,026 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of the U.S. associated with NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 occur within the Project site, as further detailed and shown in Table 4.3-2, Aquatic Resource Summary Table: USACE and as shown on Exhibit 4.3-2, Corps Aquatic Resources.

Table 4.3-2: Aquatic Resource Summary Table: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Aquatic
Resource
Name
Cowardin
Code
Active
Channel
Width Range
(Feet)
Presence
of
OHWM/
Wetland
Dominant
Vegetation
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s)1 Linear
Feet
NWW-1 R6 4 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965908,
-117.025153 0.01 71
NWW-1A R6 6 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.966006,
-117.025084 0.01 73
NWW-2 R6 3 – 4 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964929,
-117.023925 0.08 905
NWW-2A R6 1 – 2 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub 33.964977,
-117.022656 <0.01 168
NWW-2B R6 3 – 3 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965185, -
117.022994 0.01 175
NWW-2C R6 3 – 3 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964845, -
117.023224 0.01 109
NWW-3 R6 4 – 8 Yes/No
Mulefat
Scrub/Non-
native Riparian

33.962391, -
117.021747 0.37 2,553
NWW-3A R6 3 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.962760, -
117.018132 0.15 1,290
NWW-3B R6 4 – 4 Yes/No Mulefat Scrub 33.963540, -
117.022834 0.12 1,273
NWW-3B1 R6 1 – 4 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964055, -
117.021934 0.03 409
Total 0.78 7,026
Source: RBC. February 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report. Table 8. 3 Acreages summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 displayed clear indicators of an OHWM, such as a break in bank slope, change in average sediment texture,

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-4 4.3 | Biological Resources
and change in vegetation species and cover between the drainage and adjacent uplands (Exhibit 4.3-3, RWQCB Aquatic Resources). However, these features did not meet the three wetland parameters.

As such, NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 may be considered non-wetland waters of the State given the presence of an OHWM.

Approximately 0.78 acre (7,026 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of the State associated with NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 occur within the Project site, as further detailed in Table 4.3-3, Aquatic Resource Summary Table:

Regional Water Quality Control Board and as shown on Exhibit 4.3-3.

Table 4.3-3: Aquatic Resource Summary Table: Regional Water Quality Control Board Aquatic
Resource
Name
Cowardin
Code
Active
Channel
Width
Range
(Feet)
Presence
of
OHWM/
Wetland
Dominant
Vegetation
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s)1 Linear
Feet
NWW-1 R6 4 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965908,
-117.025153 0.01 71
NWW-1A R6 6 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.966006,
-117.025084 0.01 73
NWW-2 R6 3 – 4 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964929,
-117.023925 0.08 905
NWW-2A R6 1 – 1 Yes/No Mulefat
Scrub

33.964977,
-117.022656 <0.01 168
NWW-2B R6 3 – 3 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.965185,
-117.022994 0.01 175
NWW-2C R6 3 – 3 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964845,
-117.023224 0.01 109
NWW-3 R6 4 – 8 Yes/No
Mulefat
Scrub/Non-
native
Riparian

33.962391,
-117.021747 0.37 2,553
NWW-3A R6 3 – 6 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.962760,
-117.018132 0.15 1,290
NWW-3B R6 4 – 4 Yes/No Mulefat
Scrub

33.963540,
-117.022834 0.12 1,273
NWW-
3B1 R6 1 – 4 Yes/No Non-native
Grassland

33.964055,
-117.021934 0.03 409
Total 0.78 7,026
Source: RBC. February 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report.

Table 9.
1 Acreages summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 qualify as CDFW streambed with associated riparian habitat.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-5 4.3 | Biological Resources
Approximately 7.51 acres (7,026 linear feet) of vegetated streambed and 0.97 acre of riparian habitat occur within the Project area, as further detailed in Table 4.3-4, Aquatic Resource Summary Table: CDFW and as shown on Exhibit 4.3-4, CDFW Streambed and Riparian Habitats.

Table 4.3-4: Aquatic Resource Summary Table: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource
Type
Vegetation
Community
Width Range1
(Feet)
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet2
NWW-1 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 10 – 22 33.965912,
-117.025153 0.02 72
NWW-1A Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 8 – 24 33.966014,
-117.025085 0.03 78
NWW-2 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 14 – 56

33.964951,
-117.023674 0.63
982
Torrey’s Scrub Oak 33.964834,
-117.024985 0.08
NWW-2A
Vegetated
Streambed
Mulefat Scrub
1 – 2

33.964966,
-117.022542 <0.01
132
Non-native
Grassland

33.964970,
-117.022752 <0.01
Riparian
Habitat3 Mulefat Scrub N/A 33.964966,
-117.022542 0.03 –
NWW-2B Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 10 – 28 33.965173,
-117.023011 0.08 150
NWW-2C Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 19 – 40 33.964825,
-117.023223 0.07 93
NWW-3
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland
12 – 140

33.962547,
-117.021943 2.36
2,793
Mulefat Scrub 33.963045,
-117.023804 0.88
Eucalyptus Woodland 33.963695,
-117.025272 <0.01
Non-native Riparian 33.962377, -
117.022101 1.02
Blue Elderberry
Stands

33.962170,
-117.020330 0.11
Riparian
Habitat3
Mulefat Scrub
N/A

33.961528,
-117.018718 0.03
– Non-native Riparian 33.962322,
-117.022037 0.65
Blue Elderberry
Stands

33.962269,
-117.020283 0.04
NWW-3A
Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland
7 – 62

33.962783,
-117.018163 0.87
1,261
Blue Elderberry
Stands

33.962425,
-117.019001 0.14
Riparian
Habitat3
Blue Elderberry
Stands
N/A 33.962362,
-117.019172 0.01 –
NWW-3B Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 20 – 60

33.963562,
-117.023254 0.36
1,106
Mulefat Scrub 33.963617,
-117.022422 0.61

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-6 4.3 | Biological Resources
Aquatic
Resource
Name
Aquatic
Resource
Type
Vegetation
Community
Width Range1
(Feet)
Location
(lat, long) Acre(s) Linear
Feet2
Riversidean Sage
Scrub

33.963566,
-117.022903 0.07
Riparian
Habitat3 Mulefat Scrub N/A 33.963610,
-117.020925 0.21 –
NWW-3B1 Vegetated
Streambed
Non-native
Grassland 6 – 34 33.964098,
-117.021923 0.18 365
Total4 8.48 7,026
Source: RBC. February 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report. Table 10. 1 Corresponds with the approximate stream bank widths observed during delineation. Width range accounts for entirety of streambed delineated, not individual vegetation communities.
2 Linear feet not calculated for individual aquatic resource type and vegetation community (including riparian habitat that occurs outside of delineated streambed) to avoid redundant linear foot calculation where such areas overlap. 3 Occurs outside of delineated streambed.
4 Acreages and linear feet totals were summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Biological Resources
Field Visits
On April 22 and May 12, 2021, biologists surveyed the Project site and conducted vegetation mapping, a general biological survey, and habitat assessments for special-status plant and wildlife species, including species associated with Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) survey areas and MSHCP- designated riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitats. Additionally, protocol burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys were conducted during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31).

Biologists conducted four surveys between May 12, 2021 and July 6, 2021. Further information on methodology, including database searches and RCA MSHCP Information Map Query, can be found in Section 3 of the Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report (Appendix C1).

Vegetation Communities and Land Uses
The Project site supports ten vegetation communities and other land covers (see Table 4.3-5 and Exhibit 4.3-5, Biological Resources), as classified in accordance with Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California and consistent with the MSHCP vegetation mapping classification. Vegetation within the Project site is predominantly comprised of non-native grassland. For a detailed description of each vegetation community, see Section 4.2 of the Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-7 4.3 | Biological Resources
Table 4.3-5: Summary of Vegetation within the Beaumont Summit Station Project Site Vegetation Community/Land Use Project Site (acres)
Upland
Chamise Chaparral >0.01
Developed 48.7
Disturbed 1.5
Eucalyptus Woodland 0.12
Non-native Grassland 134.54
Riversidean Sage Scrub 0.24
Torrey’s Scrub Oak Stands 1.1
Riparian
Blue Elderberry Stands 0.3
Mulefat Scrub 2.14
Non-native Riparian 2.32
Total 190.991
Source: RBC. 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Project Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report. Table 2. 1 = Acreages summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Plants and Wildlife
The Project area supports a low diversity of vegetation communities and plant species diversity. A total of 29 plant species (46 percent native, 54 percent non-native) were observed during Project biological surveys. A total of 43 bird species, one reptile species, two mammal species, and one invertebrate species were observed or presumed present based on track and/or scat. Twilight/nighttime surveys were not conducted, therefore crepuscular and nocturnal animals are likely under-represented in the Project species list (Appendix B of the Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report); however, habitat assessments were performed for all special-status species to ensure that any potentially-present rare species are adequately addressed herein. For a definition of special-status species, see Section 4.3 of the Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report.

Narrow Endemic and Federally/State Listed Plan Species
The Project site occurs within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for Marvin’s onion (Allium marvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), which are MSHCP narrow endemic plant species. A habitat assessment and focused survey for both Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya was conducted on April 22, 2021 and a second focused survey was conducted on May 12, 2021.

No suitable habitat for these species was observed within the Project site and no occurrences of either species was observed. No other MSCHP narrow endemic plant species were identified within or immediately adjacent to the Project site or have the potential to occur within the Project site.

No federally or state listed threatened or endangered plants were observed during general biological surveys and none have a moderate or high potential to occur on the Project site based on the lack of suitable habitats. Additionally, there are no records of federally or state listed species occurring within or immediately adjacent to the Project site.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-8 4.3 | Biological Resources
Non-Federally/State Listed Special-Status Plant Species Other special-status plant species include those that are California Species of Special Concern (SSC) or are a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1 or 2. The CRPR system was created by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), which is a statewide resource conservation organization that has developed an inventory of California's sensitive plant species. The CRPR system is recognized by the CDFW and essentially serves as an early warning list of potential candidate species for threatened or endangered status.

No non-federally/state listed plant species have a moderate or high potential to occur on the Project site based on the lack of suitable habitats. Non-federally/state-listed special-status plants with a low potential to occur on-site include Jaeger’s milkvetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri), Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), and San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum). Additionally, there are no records of non-federally or state listed special status species occurring within or immediately adjacent to the Project site.

Federally/State Listed Wildlife Species
One federally and state endangered species, least bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), was detected during protocol-level surveys the Project site; the results of the protocol least Bell’s vireo are discussed below.

No other federally or state listed wildlife species were documented on or adjacent to the site during the various biological surveys or are expected to occur based on the disturbed nature of the site and limited native habitat. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database results do not identify federally or state listed wildlife within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. Historical occurrences of Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), coastal Californica gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica), and crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) have been recorded within one to three miles of the Project site, but none of these species are expected on site due to the lack of suitable habitat. No other federally or state listed species have potential to occur on the Project site.

No USFWS designated critical habitat occurs within or immediately adjacent the Project site, or within three miles of the project site.

Least Bell’s Vireo
Suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo within the Project site is primarily composed of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) scrub and non-native riparian vegetation. An individual male least Bell’s vireo was observed in mulefat scrub within a drainage in the southwestern portion of the site during the first two of eight focused surveys, on April 22 and May 6, 2021. The individual was observed foraging and moving frequently along the mulefat canopy. The lack of observations following the first two least Bell’s vireo surveys suggests that this bird was an early season migrant that did not establish a nesting territory within the Project area. No female vireo or active nests were detected during protocol surveys.

Least bell’s vireo is covered under the MSHCP as it is also associated with MSCHP riparian/riverine habitat.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-9 4.3 | Biological Resources
Non-Federally/State Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species The non-federally/state listed special-status wildlife species observed on-site during biological surveys include coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeris), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii); these species are also MSCHP-covered species. No other non- federally/state listed special-status wildlife species were observed during biological surveys.

The non-federally/state listed special-status wildlife species with moderate to high potential to occur include orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). All of these species are covered species under the MSHCP with the exception of southern California legless lizard.

Burrowing Owl
The RCA MSHCP Information Map revealed that the Project is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. Suitable burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Suitable burrowing owl habitat may also include trees and shrubs if the canopy covers less than 30 percent of the ground surface. Burrows are the essential component of burrowing owl habitat; both natural and artificial burrows provide protection, shelter, and nests for burrowing owl. Burrowing owl typically use burrows made by rodents, such as ground squirrels or badgers, but may also use human-made structures, such as concrete culverts; concrete, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath concrete or asphalt pavement.

Suitable habitat for burrowing owl was observed within the Project site. California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), colonial burrows and burrows of a suitable size to support burrowing owl were observed throughout the non-native grassland within the Project site. Therefore, protocol burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31) in accordance with the MSHCP. California ground squirrels were active during all surveys, although increased activity was observed along the southern portion of the Project site. Although the Project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl, no burrowing owl(s) or burrowing owl sign were observed on-site during the protocol surveys.

MSCHP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
The Project site supports several drainages and riparian areas that meet the MSHCP definition of riparian/riverine features; the Project site does not support areas that meet the MHSCP definition of a vernal pool.

The on-site drainages and associated tributaries (NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1), described as potentially CDFW jurisdictional resources, meet the MSHCP definition of riparian/riverine features as they contain freshwater flow during “a portion of the year,” specifically after rain events. Based on the results of the jurisdictional aquatic resources delineation, all on-site drainages and associated tributaries are classified as “ephemeral,” and the primary known hydrologic source is direct precipitation. NWW-3 also receives runoff from

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-10 4.3 | Biological Resources
development south of the review area that is collected and conveyed on-site through a culverted storm drain outlet.

Additionally, NWW-2A, NWW-3, NWW-3A, and NWW-3B support riparian habitat dominated by trees or shrubs which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source.

Specifically, NWW-2A, NWW-3, and NWW-3B support mulefat scrub; NWW-3 supports non-native riparian habitat that is dominated by the invasive tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima); and NWW-3 and NWW-3A support blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) stands. Therefore, the features which are described as CDFW jurisdictional riparian habitat meet the definition of MSHCP riparian habitat.

Additionally, the mulefat scrub within and adjacent to NWW-3 and NWW-3B provide suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo, an MSHCP riparian/riverine wildlife species.

4.3.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), as amended, provides for listing of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals and designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA regulates the “take” of any endangered fish or wildlife species, per Section 9. As development is proposed, the responsible agency or individual landowner is required to consult with the USFWS to assess potential impacts on listed species (including plants) or their critical habitat, pursuant to Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. USFWS is required to make a determination as to the extent of impact a project would have on a particular species. If it is determined that potential impacts on a species would likely occur, measures to avoid or reduce such impacts must be identified. USFWS may issue an incidental take statement, following consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion. This allows for take of the species that is incidental to another authorized activity, provided that the action will not adversely affect the existence of the species. Section 10 of the ESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits to non- federal parties with the development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP); Section 7 provides for permitting of federal projects.

Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S. Code § 1344), the USACE is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which include those waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3 (a) (as amended at 85 Federal Register 22250, April 21, 2020; Navigable Waters Protection Rule). The USACE, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. The USACE would require a Standard Individual Permit (SIP) for more than minimal impacts to waters of the U.S. as determined by the USACE. Substantial impacts on waters of the U.S. may require an Individual Permit.

Projects with minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment may meet the conditions of an existing Nationwide Permit (NWP).

A water quality certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S. Code § 1341) is required for all Section 404 permitted actions. The RWQCB, a division of the State Water Resources

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-11 4.3 | Biological Resources
Control Board (SWRCB), provides oversight of the 401-certification process in California. The RWQCB is required to provide Water Quality Certification for licenses or permits that authorize an activity that may result in a discharge from a point source into a water of the U.S. Water Quality Certification authorization “is limited to assuring that a discharge from a Federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements” (40 CFR 121.3).

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the U.S. under Section 402 of the CWA (33 U.S. Code § 1342).

Navigable Waters Protection Rule
The U.S EPA and USACE published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (Final Rule) on April 21, 2020, in order to define the scope of waters subject to federal regulation under the CWA. The Final Rule went into effect nationwide on June 22, 2020. Paragraph (a) of the Final Rule identifies four categories of waters that are “waters of the United States,” these waters are referred to as “jurisdictional”; paragraph (b) of the Final Rule identifies those waters and features that are excluded from the definition of “waters of the United States”; and paragraph (c) of the Final Rule defines applicable terms.

The term “Waters of the U.S.” means:
1) The territorial seas, and waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
2) Tributaries;
3) Lakes and ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and 4) Adjacent wetlands.

The USACE typically regulates as waters of the U.S. any body of water displaying an OHWM. USACE jurisdiction over non-tidal waters of the U.S. extends laterally to the OHWM or beyond the OHWM to the limit of any adjacent wetlands, if present. The OHWM is defined as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area.” Jurisdiction typically extends upstream to the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible.

Permits authorized by USACE under the Act typically contain mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts on wetlands and other waters of the U.S. in a manner that achieves no net loss of wetland acres or values.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands
This Executive Order from May 1977 establishes a national policy to avoid adverse impacts on wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. On projects with federal actions or approvals, impacts on wetlands must be identified in the environmental document. Alternatives that avoid wetlands must be considered. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, then all practicable measures to minimize harm to

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-12 4.3 | Biological Resources
those wetlands must be included. This must be documented in a specific ‘Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding’ in the final environmental document for the proposed project.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.) is a federal statute that implements treaties with several countries on the conservation and protection of migratory birds. The number of bird species covered by the MBTA is extensive and listed at 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.13. The USFWS enforces the MBTA, which prohibits “by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migratory bird, or attempt such actions, except as permitted by regulation.

Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
This act was originally passed in 1940 and provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest or egg, unless allowed by permit. ‘Take’ includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000- or one-year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.) was established in 1970 as California’s counterpart to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, where feasible.

CEQA applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a "project." A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity, which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

California Endangered Species Act and Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA; California Fish and Game Code [CFGC] § 2050 et seq.), in combination with the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CFGC § 1900 et seq.), regulates the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the state. California also lists species of special concern based on limited distribution; declining populations; diminishing habitat; or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. CDFW is responsible for assessing development projects for their potential to impact listed species and their

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-13 4.3 | Biological Resources
habitats. State-listed special-status species are addressed through the issuance of a 2081 permit (Memorandum of Understanding).

In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act (CFGC § 2800 et seq.) was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in southern California. The NCCP program was established “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.

Native Plant Protection Act of 1977
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA)(e.g., CFGC §§ 1900-1913) directs CDFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA gives the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, since CESA does not explicitly cover rare plants. Accordingly, the CDFW’s Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintains a ‘special plants’ list of approximately 2,000 native plant species, subspecies or varieties that are tracked by the CNDDB. The NPPA prohibits the taking of listed plants from the wild and requires notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This requirement allows CDFW to salvage plants that would otherwise be destroyed.

The CNPS publishes and maintains an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. The inventory assigns a ranking status. Plants on the 1A, 1B and 2 lists of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualify for listing and CDFW requires that they be addressed under CEQA.

Oak Woodlands Conservation Act 1360
The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act is intended to work in concert with local planning and zoning strategies to conserve oak woodlands. Jurisdictions may prepare an Oak Woodlands Management Plan and thereby qualify for State of California financial incentives to protect the oak resources described therein. Through this Act, it is the State of California’s intent to support and encourage voluntary, long- term private stewardship and conservation of California’s oak woodlands by offering landowners financial incentives to protect and promote biologically functional oak woodlands over time and encourage local land use planning that is consistent with the preservation of oak woodlands, particularly special oak woodlands habitat elements. The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act also establishes a fund for oak woodlands conservation to which future appropriations for oak woodlands protection may be made.

California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 - 1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, § 1602 of the CFGC, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake” (CFGC § 1602). CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream. Jurisdictional waters are

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-14 4.3 | Biological Resources
delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or isolated resources (e.g., riparian or wetland areas not supported by a river, lake, or stream). CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to the applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511, 3513, 3801, 4700, 5050, and 5515 CDFW protects and manages fish, wildlife, and native plant resources within California. The California Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW are responsible for issuing permits for the take or possession of protected species. The following sections of the CFGC address protected species: § 3511 (birds), § 4700 (mammals), § 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and § 5515 (fish). In addition, the protection of birds of prey is provided for in §§ 3503, 3513, and 3800 of the CFGC Unlawful Take or Destruction of Nests or Eggs (Fish and Game Code Sections 3505.5-3513) Section 3503.5 of the CFGC specifically protects birds of prey, stating:

It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

Section 3513 of the CFGC duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds, stating:

It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

California Wetlands Conservation Policy
California wetlands policy is more restrictive than Federal wetlands policy. The goal of California Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993) is to ensure no net loss of wetlands within the State. This policy, incorporated in an executive order by then Governor Pete Wilson, also encourages a long-term net gain in the State’s quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values. Interpretation of this order indicates that any developer wishing to fill in wetlands for construction for new development must perform mitigation in the form of constructed wetlands elsewhere at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1. In addition to the USACE, State regulatory agencies claiming jurisdiction over wetlands include the CDFW and the SWRCB.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
Under Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCB must certify that actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet State water quality standards. The RWQCB also regulates waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Act Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) (see below). The RWQCB requires projects to avoid impacts to wetlands if feasible and requires that projects do not result in a net loss of wetland acreage or a net loss of wetland function and values. The RWQCB typically requires

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-15 4.3 | Biological Resources
compensatory mitigation for impacts on wetlands and/or waters of the State. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters deemed isolated or not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction under the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers decision. Dredging, filling, or excavation of isolated waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the State and prospective dischargers are required to obtain authorization through an Order of Waste Discharge or waiver thereof from the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of Porter-Cologne Act.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code § 13000 et seq.) provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The SWRCB was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis.

The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if a Section 404 permit is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.

Regional
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation/planning program for Western Riverside County. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special-status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to special-status species and associated native habitats.

Through agreements with the USFWS and CDFW, the MSHCP designates 146 special-status animal and plant species as Covered Species, of which the majority have no project-specific survey/conservation requirements. The MSHCP provides mitigation for project-specific impacts to these species for projects that are compliant/consistent with MSHCP requirements, such that the impacts are reduced to below a level of significance pursuant to CEQA.

The Covered Species that are not yet adequately conserved have additional requirements for these species to ultimately be considered ‘adequately conserved.’ A number of these species have survey requirements based on a project’s occurrence within a designated MSHCP survey area and/or based on the presence of suitable habitat. These include Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.3), as identified by NEPSSA; Criteria Area Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2) identified by the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas (CAPSSA); animal species (burrowing owl,

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-16 4.3 | Biological Resources
mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates) identified by survey areas (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2); and species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats, including least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and three species of fairy shrimp (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2). An additional 28 species (MSHCP Volume I, Table 9.3) not yet adequately conserved have species-specific objectives for the species to become adequately conserved. However, these species do not have project-specific survey requirements.

The goal of the MSHCP is to have a total Conservation Area in excess of 500,000 acres, including approximately 347,000 acres on existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands, and approximately 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands targeted within the MSHCP Criteria Area. The MSHCP is divided into 16 separate Area Plans, each with its own conservation goals and objectives. Within each Area Plan, the Criteria Area is divided into Subunits, and further divided into Criteria Cells and Cell Groups (a group of criteria cells).

Each Cell Group and ungrouped, independent Cell has designated “criteria” for the purpose of targeting additional conservation lands for acquisition. Projects located within the Criteria Area are subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process to determine if lands are targeted for inclusion in the MSHCP Reserve. In addition, all projects located within the Criteria Area are subject to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process, where the project is reviewed by the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to determine overall compliance/consistency with the biological requirements of the MSHCP.

Local
Application for Environmental Review and Processing
As part of the entitlement process, applicants are required to complete and submit an Application for Environmental Review and Processing, which is used by the City Planning Department to determine what, if any, technical studies may be required as part of the entitlement process. According to the Application for Environmental Review and Processing, a biological resource report is required for an implementing development project if: native soils and habitats such as wetlands are within, or in proximity to the project area, and/or construction activities will result in trenching, excavation of undisturbed soils.

City of Beaumont General Plan
General Plan (GP) goals and policies that may reduce potential Project impacts to biological resources include:

Land Use and Design Element
Goal 3.1: A City structure that enhances the quality of life of residents, meets the community’s vision for the future, and connects new growth areas together with established Beaumont neighborhoods.

Policy 3.1.12 Establish buffers between open space areas and urban development by encouraging less intensive rural development within proximity to the open space areas.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-17 4.3 | Biological Resources
Community Facilities and Infrastructure Element
Goal 7.5: Manage and effectively treat storm water to minimize risk to downstream resources.

Policy 7.5.3 Minimize pollutant discharges into storm drainage systems, natural drainages, and groundwater. Design the necessary stormwater detention basins, recharge basins, water quality basins, or similar water capture facilities to protect water quality by capturing and/or treating water before it enters a watercourse.

Policy 7.5.5 Require hydrologic/hydraulic studies and WQMPs to ensure that new developments are redevelopment projects will not cause hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream receiving waters, including groundwater.

Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal 8.5: A City that preserves and enhances its natural resources.

Policy 8.5.1 Minimize the loss of sensitive species and critical habitat areas in areas planned for future development.

Policy 8.5.2 Require new developments adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat areas to maintain a protective buffer, minimize new impervious surface, minimize light pollution, and emphasize native landscaping.

Policy 8.5.3 Encourage new development to support a diversity of native species and manage invasive species.

Policy 8.5.5 Protect and enhance creeks, lakes, and adjacent wetlands by eradicating non-native vegetation and restoring native vegetation.

Policy 8.5.7 Discourage the use of plant species on the California Invasive Plant Inventory.

Policy 8.7.5 Preserve watercourses and washes necessary for regional flood control, ground water recharge areas, and drainage for open space and recreational purposes.

Policy 8.7.6 Preserve permanent open space edges or greenbelts that provide a buffer for separation between adjoining developments.

Goal 8.8: A City where the natural and visual character of the community is preserved.

Policy 8.8.1 Promote the maintenance of open space through the implementation of the General Plan.

Policy 8.8.2 Protect and preserve open space and natural habitat wherever possible.

Policy 8.8.3 Work with Riverside County and adjacent cities, landowners, and conservation organizations to preserve, protect, and enhance open space and natural resources consistent with the MSHCP.

Policy 8.8.4 Require the provision of open space linkages and conservation between development projects, consistent with the conservation efforts targeted in the MSHCP.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-18 4.3 | Biological Resources
Policy 8.8.6 Establish buffers between open space areas and urban development by encouraging less intensive rural development within proximity to the open space areas.

Goal 8.10: A City that promotes the protection of biological resources through MSHCP implementation.

Policy 8.10.1 Work with landowners and government agencies in promoting development concepts that are sensitive to the environment and consider the preservation of natural habitats and further the conservation goals of the MSHCP.

Policy 8.10.2 Work with landowners and government agencies in identifying areas within the City of Beaumont and its Sphere of Influence that should be preserved as open space for passive recreation, resource management, or public safety and which meet the City’s preservation obligations per the MSHCP.

4.3.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning biological resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Methodology and Assumptions
The Project site and its associated design are evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria as the basis for determining the level of impacts related to biological resources. This analysis considers existing regulations, laws, and standards that serve to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-19 4.3 | Biological Resources
Feasible mitigation measures are recommended, when warranted, to avoid or lessen the Project’s significant adverse impacts.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on biological resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site, and the surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on the aforementioned biological resources studies; review of maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a project would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on biological resources considers how the potential for development and operation of the site would affect the resources.

4.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.3-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Impacts on MSCHP Narrow Endemic or Federally/State Listed Plant Species The Project would not impact federally and/or state listed or MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant species as none are present or have moderate to high potential to occur within the Project site.

Impacts on Non-Listed Special Status Plant Species
The Project would not impact special-status plants as none are present or have a moderate to high potential to occur within the Project site.

Impacts on Federally/State Listed Wildlife Species
An individual male Least Bell’s vireo was detected within the mulefat scrub in the western portion of the Project site during early protocol-level surveys (i.e., surveys one and two of eight protocol surveys).

However, least Bell’s vireo was not detected during the remaining protocol-level surveys. This species still has moderate to high potential to occur within the Project site due to the presence of suitable habitat.

This Project would result in the removal of suitable mulefat scrub habitat (1.14 acres) which could result in significant impacts to least Bell’s vireo. Additionally, suitable mulefat scrub and non-native riparian habitat occurs south of to the grading footprint. Project-specific Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 details the strategy to avoid vegetation removal during the bird breeding season. With the implementation of this measure, impacts to least Bell’s vireo would be less than significant.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-20 4.3 | Biological Resources
The Project would not impact any other federally and/or state listed wildlife species as no other species are present or have potential to occur on-site.

Impacts on Non-Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species
The non-listed special status wildlife species detected on-site during all biological surveys includes coastal whiptail, California horned lark, cooper’s hawk, yellow warbler, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. The Project also has moderate to high potential to support orange-throated whiptail, loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, and yellow-breasted chat. The Project would result in habitat loss for each of these species. However, these species are considered adequately covered under the MSHCP and with payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees to mitigate impacts on native vegetation, impacts on these species would be considered less than significant.

Southern California legless lizard is a California Species of Special concern that has moderate potential to occur within the Project due to the presence of suitable habitat and is not covered under the MSHCP. A majority of the moderately suitable habitat for southern California legless lizard within the Project site occurs within the drainage south of the grading footprint, which would be avoided during construction of the Project. However, the Project would result in removal of some suitable habitat within the smaller drainages in the northeast portion of the site, which would be adverse. Payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees provides habitat-based mitigation within the plan area for all wildlife and plant species, including MSHCP-covered species and Species of Special Concern, impacted due to the loss of suitable habitat from covered projects. As such, loss of habitat for Species of Special Concern would be offset through this habitat-based mitigation under the MSHCP such that the loss of habitat resulting from the Project would not constitute significant impacts. These species are considered adequately covered under the MSHCP; habitat-based impacts on non-listed special-status wildlife species would be less than significant, conditional upon satisfaction of previous mitigation requirements.

Although not detected during protocol surveys, the Project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl which is a California Species of Special Concern. To avoid impacts on burrowing owl, a pre- construction survey will be required pursuant to the MSHCP. Through compliance with the MSHCP guidelines and MM BIO-2, impacts on burrowing owls would be less than significant.

Impacts on Nesting Birds
The Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed or ground disturbing activities are initiated during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). All habitat and land cover within the Project site has the potential to support nesting birds. The tree and shrub communities have the potential to support a variety of sensitive and non-sensitive avian species. The non-native grassland and disturbed habitats have the potential to support ground nesting species, such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and California horned lark. Even the developed portions of the Project still have the potential to support non-sensitive species such as house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Impacts on nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and CFGC. Project-specific MM BIO-3 which would avoid Project impacts on nesting birds. With the implementation of this measure, impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-21 4.3 | Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Project activities shall not be initiated within 100 feet of any least Bell’s vireo suitable habitat area(s) during the species’ breeding season (March 15-August 31) unless a negative USFWS protocol survey has been conducted within one year of construction kickoff and findings were negative.

If groundbreaking activities occur outside the least Bell’s vireo nesting season (i.e., September 16-March 14), a qualified biologist shall perform a presence/absence survey within suitable habitat on-site, and shall continue these surveys on a monthly basis, especially as breeding season commences.

If least Bell’s vireo nesting is discovered, either during protocol surveys, monthly presence/absence surveys, or incidentally, no Project activities shall occur within 300 feet of any least Bell’s vireo nest site until it has been confirmed that the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active. A qualified biologist shall always be present when construction crews are working within 1/8 mile surrounding an identified least Bell’s vireo nest site to ensure that the birds do not react unfavorably to Project activities. If the qualified biologist observes signs of agitation stemming from Project activities, the activities shall cease and not resume until the birds’ behavior normalizes. If the birds continue to exhibit signs of agitation, Project activities shall be adjusted to avoid impacts on nesting least Bell’s vireo. Additionally, in the presence of least Bell’s vireo nests, noise level from Project activities shall not to exceed 65 dBA at the edge of occupied habitat. If this is not possible, a noise barrier shall be constructed to keep noise at or below 65 dBA to avoid adverse impacts to any least Bell’s vireo nest/s.

During the least Bell’s vireo breeding season, artificial light shall not be cast into suitable habitat.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for Project personnel prior to grading in conformance with MSCHP best management practices requirements. The training shall include a description of least Bell’s vireo and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the Project, and the access routes to and Project site boundaries within which the Project activities must be accomplished.

MM BIO-2 A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls within 30 days prior to site disturbance. If burrowing owls are documented on-site, the owls will be relocated/excluded from the site outside of the breeding season following accepted protocols, as specified in the MSHCP.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-22 4.3 | Biological Resources
MM BIO-3 Vegetation clearing and ground disturbing activities should be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact 4.3-2 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional pl ans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Native Vegetation
The Project would primarily result in permanent impacts on upland vegetation communities and land uses, including 103.8 acres of non-native grassland and 48.37 acres of developed land. Additional habitats that would be directly affected by the Project include impacts on >0.01 acre of chamise chaparral,

1.5 acres of disturbed land, 0.1 acre of eucalyptus woodland, 1.14 acres of mulefat scrub, 0.23 acre of Riversidean sage scrub, and 1.09 acres of Torrey’s scrub oak (Quercus acutidens) stands (see Table 4.3-6).

Chamise chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub are native communities that are common, widespread, and abundant in the state. Mulefat scrub is not considered a sensitive vegetation community by CDFW; however, this habitat is part of jurisdictional resources on-site and is therefore protected. Torrey’s scrub oak is not identified by state or federal agencies as a sensitive species or habitat; however, because this vegetation is mapped unusually due to its monocultural characteristics, it is being treated as scrub oak chaparral for the purposes of this impact analysis.

Eucalyptus woodland and non-native grassland are common naturalized vegetation communities.

Additionally, disturbed habitat would be impacted; this land cover type provides minimal biological value.

The developed habitat provides minimal-to-no biological value.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-23 4.3 | Biological Resources
Table 4.3-6: Beaumont Summit Station Project Site Vegetation Communities/Land Use Impacts Vegetation Community/Land Use Project Site Impacts (acres) Upland
Chamise Chaparral >0.01
Developed 48.37
Disturbed 1.5
Eucalyptus Woodland 0.1
Non-native Grassland 103.8
Riversidean Sage Scrub 0.23
Torrey’s Scrub Oak Stands 1.09
Riparian
Mulefat Scrub 1.14
Total 156.231
Source: RBC. 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Project Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report.

Table 11.
1 = Acreages summed using raw numbers provided during GIS analysis (available upon request) and thus the sum of the total rounded numbers may not directly add up in this table.

Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
As detailed in the Biological Resources and MSHCP Consistency Report (Appendix C-1), the Project would permanently impact approximately 0.25 acre (3,072 linear feet) of non-wetland waters of the U.S./State that are potentially jurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB, and 2.17 acres (3,072 linear feet) of vegetated streambed and 0.24 acre of associated riparian habitat that are potentially jurisdictional by the CDFW.

Permitting through the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW would be required for impacts on non-wetland waters of the U.S. jurisdictional by the USACE, non-wetland waters of the State jurisdictional by the RWQCB, and vegetated streambed and associated riparian habitat jurisdictional by the CDFW. The Project applicant would be responsible for acquiring the necessary authorizations required by the regulatory agencies and associated compensatory mitigation requirements (see MM BIO-4).

Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
MSHCP riparian/riverine areas occur on the Project site. The Project’s CDFW-jurisdictional vegetated streambed meets the definition of MSHCP riverine, and the CDFW-jurisdictional riparian meets the definition of MSHCP riparian habitat; impacts to CDFW-jurisdictional resources are equal to impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine. According to the Project DBESP Report (Appendix C3), the Project site contains approximately 8.48 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, of which, 2.41 acres (0.24 acre of MSHCP riparian habitat and 2.17 acres of MSCHP riverine habitat) would be directly impacted by construction; approximately 6.07 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas would be avoided on site. The on-site MSHCP riparian/riverine areas coincide with CDFW-jurisdictional vegetated streambed and associated riparian habitat. To address impacts to riparian/riverine areas, MM BIO-4 is proposed, which would mitigate direct impacts at a 2:1 ratio.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-4 Prior to any ground-disturbing activity near jurisdictional features, applicable permits shall be obtained through the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW for impacts on jurisdictional features. Based on the results of the aquatic resources delineation for the proposed

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-24 4.3 | Biological Resources
Project, the proposed Project would permanently impact 0.25 acre of USACE- jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S. and RWQCB-jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the State (i.e., NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1). Additionally, the proposed Project would permanently impact 2.17 acres of CDFW-jurisdictional vegetated streambed (i.e., NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1) and 0.24 acre of CDFW-jurisdictional riparian habitat (i.e., NWW-2A and NWW-3B). The Project applicant shall be obligated to implement/comply with the permit conditions and mitigation measures required by the resource agencies regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.

A minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (0.25 acre USACE/0.25 acre RWQCB/2.41 acres CDFW) is typically required, though ratios may be higher. Compensatory mitigation to offset impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources may be implemented through off- site, permittee-responsible mitigation, in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank credit purchase (e.g., Riverpark Mitigation Bank), or a combination of these options depending on availability. The proposed mitigation strategy is the purchase of 4.82 re-establishment and/or rehabilitation credits (2:1 mitigation ratio) from the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. The regulatory agencies will make the final determination of the final compensatory mitigation requirements during the permit evaluation process. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant will provide the City of Beaumont with purchase confirmation.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact 4.3-3 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Level of Significance: No Impact
As discussed in Section 4.3.2, Environmental Setting, RBC conducted three separate field visits: April 22, June 3, and June 7, 2021. Field staff examined the potential for wetland waters of the U.S. and State and CDFW-jurisdictional wetlands. Data was collected at three representative Wetland Data Form Points (WDP) within the Project site, one within NWW-2, one within NWW-3, and one within Basin-4, to determine the presence or absence of jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibits 4.3-2 – 4.3-5). The delineated aquatic features on-site did not meet the appropriate wetland parameters to qualify as wetland waters of the U.S./State or CDFW-jurisdictional wetlands based on the data collected during the field visits. No areas within the Project site meet the MSHCP definition of a vernal pool. Because no State or federally protected wetlands were identified on the Project site, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-25 4.3 | Biological Resources
Level of Significance
No impact.

Impact 4.3-4 Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is situated at the northern end of the City of Beaumont and occurs immediately north of a developed residential area. Land located north of the site, north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, has been graded in preparation for planned industrial development, and nearby areas to the west and immediately south are highly developed. The site is not identified as a wildlife corridor or criteria area under the MSHCP, and does not serve as a regional wildlife corridor. The drainages in the southwest portion of the site likely serve as minor local wildlife corridors and avian ‘stepping stone’ corridors. The largest drainage (Planning Area 3) would not be developed as part of the Project so it would continue to function as a local wildlife corridor. Significant impacts on wildlife corridors are not anticipated with Project implementation.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Impact 4.3-5 Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Implementation of the Project would be subject to all applicable Federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources as outlined above in Section 4.3.3, Regulatory Setting. The Project would be constructed in compliance with the requirements of the Beaumont GP and the Beaumont Municipal Code. The Beaumont GP provides goals and policies for the conservation of biological resources. Goal 8.5 calls for a City that preserves and enhances its natural resources and Policy 8.5.1 calls for the minimization of the loss of sensitive species and critical habitat areas in areas planned for future development. Policy 8.5.3 encourage new development to support a diversity of native species and manage invasive species. The Project would use drought tolerant and/or native plant materials. Native tree species considered in the landscape concept (Section 4.6.1 of the Specific Plan) include white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), and various Quercus species.

The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. An application and approval from the City is required for any removal of front yard/street tree or trees. As described above, no street trees occur on-site and no residential structures and associated front yards occur on site. There are occasional trees near the outbuildings at the east of the site; however, these do not appear to meet the definition of street

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-26 4.3 | Biological Resources
or yard trees. As such, the Project would comply with City of Beaumont requirements and no street tree approvals would be required, as no impacts to such resources would occur with project implementation.

Based on compliance with all local policies and ordinances, impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Impact 4.3-6 Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area. As such, the Project site is not targeted for conservation by the MSHCP to meet Reserve Assembly goals. The Project is not subject to the HANS or JPR processes.

Protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools and Associated Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.2)
Riparian/riverine areas are defined by the MSHCP as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year.” According to the Project DBESP Report (Appendix C3), NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW- 2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3,NWW-3A, NWW-3B, and NWW-3B1 meet the MSHCP definition of riparian/riverine areas as they contain freshwater flow during “a portion of the year,” specifically after rain events.

Additionally, NWW-2A, NWW-3, NWW-3A, and NWW-3B support riparian habitat dominated by trees or shrubs “which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source .” Specifically, NWW-2A, NWW-3, and NWW-3B support mulefat scrub; NWW-3 supports non-native riparian habitat that is dominated by the invasive tree-of-heaven; and NWW-3 and NWW-3A support blue elderberry stands. Therefore, the features which are described as CDFW-jurisdictional riparian habitat meet the definition of MSHCP riparian habitat.

Additionally, the mulefat scrub within and adjacent to NWW-3 and NWW-3B provide suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo, an MSHCP riparian/riverine wildlife species. An individual male least Bell’s vireo was observed during the first two of eight protocol surveys foraging and moving frequently along the mulefat canopy of NWW-3. The lack of observations following the first two least Bell’s vireo surveys suggests that this bird was an early season migrant that did not establish a nesting territory within the Project area. No female vireo or active nests were detected during protocol surveys. The riparian/riverine features within

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-27 4.3 | Biological Resources
the Project site do not, however, support suitable habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow-billed cuckoo; these species prefer dense native riparian woodlands and forests which are absent from the Project site. Therefore, there is very low to no potential for southwestern willow flycatcher or western yellow-billed cuckoo to occur within the Project site, and no focused surveys for these species were conducted.

The Project would result in permanent, direct impacts on NWW-1, NWW-1A, NWW-2, NWW-2A, NWW-2B, NWW-2C, NWW-3B, NWW-3B1, and a small portion of NWW-3A. The Project applicant designed the proposed Project to avoid impacts on NWW-3, the primary and highest quality riparian/riverine resource within the project boundary, as well as a majority of NWW-3A (a tributary of NWW-3).

The 2.41 acres of on-site MSHCP riparian/riverine resources within the Project impact area provide minimal aquatic resource functions due to the highly disturbed nature of the property (e.g., regularly mowed, grazed, and farmed land) and historic degradation and runoff into the on-site aquatic features from previous on-site farming operations. Furthermore, the Project was designed to avoid impacts on NWW-3, the primary and highest quality riparian/riverine resource within the project boundary.

The purchase of re-establishment and/or rehabilitation credits and preservation of 4.82 acres of high-quality sensitive resources at the Riverpark Mitigation Bank to offset impacts to 2.41 acres of highly disturbed MSHCP riparian/riverine resources meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative. See MM BIO-4.

Protection of Narrow Endemic Plants (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified NEPSSA, site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plant Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present.

The Project site is located within a NEPSSA, which identifies the target species Marvin’s onion and many- stemmed dudleya. The Project site does not contain appropriate soils or suitable habitat for these species, and therefore the Project would not impact Narrow Endemic Plants. There will be no unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to narrow endemic plant species resulting from the Project.

The Project would be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildland Interface (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect impacts associated with locating public and private developments in proximity to an MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project is not located in proximity to an MSHCP Conservation Area, and therefore the Urban/Wildland Guidelines do not apply to the Project.

Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSCHP Section 6.3.2) Volume I, Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP requires habitat assessments and focused surveys for projects located within the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl, Mammal, Amphibian, and

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-28 4.3 | Biological Resources
Invertebrate Survey Areas. The Project site is located with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, and NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya, but not the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas, Mammal, Amphibian, or Invertebrate Survey Areas. The site does not support suitable habitat for Narrow Endemic Plant Species Marvin’s onion or many-stemmed dudleya, and these species were not detected during 2021 surveys. A focused burrowing owl survey was conducted in 2021 and was negative; however, suitable habitat for this species occurs on the Project site. Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys would be required to comply with MSHCP Objective 6 for burrowing owls. With the implementation of this measure (MM BIO-2), the Project would be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

Furthermore, as identified in the DBESP (Appendix C3):
• There would be no unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to CASSA plant species resulting from the Project.
• There would be no unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl with the Project. • There would be no unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to MSHCP mammal species resulting from the Project.
• There would be no unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to MSHCP amphibian species resulting from the Project.
• There would be no unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to Delhi Sands flower-loving fly resulting from the Project.

The Project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

Conclusion of MSHCP Consistency
The Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), and MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements. The Project would be consistent with the goals/objectives of the MSHCP with the implementation of the proposed mitigation and avoidance measures described in this analysis.

In addition, implementation of the Project would require payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees. Based on the local development mitigation fee schedule for fiscal year 2022 (effective July 1, 2021 – December 31, 2021), fees would be $11,982/acre for commercial and industrial development and $2,935/acre for low-density residential.

Mitigation Measures
MMs BIO-2 and BIO-4.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-29 4.3 | Biological Resources

4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant. ‘Related projects’ refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the Project. There is a related project located directly north (across Cherry Valley Boulevard) of the Project site that has recently been graded in preparation of the development of industrial land uses.

In addition, areas to the west and south of the Project site are developed. Development of the Project site and the surrounding existing and future development precludes the area as a wildlife corridor and eliminates the potential for impacts to go beyond the Project site.

The Project site is relatively disturbed and does not support significant stands of native vegetation, with the possible exception of the riparian habitat in the southwestern portion of the site which would remain undeveloped. Further, the Project would be fully compliant with the regional MSHCP which protects biological resources regionally such that cumulative impacts within the plan area are avoided. As such, the Project would not result in significant cumulative effects.

4.3.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable biological resources impacts have been identified.

4.3.8 References
City of Beaumont. 2020. Beaumont General Plan.
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .

City of Beaumont. 2020. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont General Plan, SCH No. 2018031022. https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 .

City of Beaumont. ND. Application for Tree Removal.
http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30576/Tree-Removal-Application .

RBC. November 2021. Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report.

RBC. February 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Project Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report.

RBC. February 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Project DBESP Report.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-30 4.3 | Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.



"#
!


!




!













"









$





!




!






$



!




!


 





$



!




!


 






 

$



!




!


 



$



!




!


 





$



!




!


 





$



!




!


 
"$





$



!




!


 
"$





$



!




!


 
"$


 

! 


LEGENDExhibit 4.3-1: NRCS Soils Survey Data and NWI Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan EIRCity of BeaumontNot to scalePage 1736 of 2513

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-32 4.3 | Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

_______________FFFFF FFFF FFFFF
F

FFFFFF FFFFFFF
FFFFFF
FFFFF

FFFFFF F





 
 
 
 
 
 
 



































CherryValley BlvdBrookside Ave!"`$ "2%"3 ."  



F $+0+ +%*0
 
0 /$""0 +%*0 
"0(
*! 
0 +.) +%*0 
1(2".0_(+3 %." 0%+*  



+*
"0(
*!

0"./ 
.0$"*+00+) $
**"( 



 


/%*.+/%+*
( "

01."
3 ("%0 $
$""0 (+3((
-1
0% ."/+1. "/ 3%0$
* 

."*+0 "4," 0"! 0+ " +.,/&1.%/!% 0%+*
(2%
0$"  ,.+ "// "

01."/ (
'%*# 
 +. 0$."",
.
)"0".3"0(
*!
*! 0$1/
*0% %,
0"! 0+ "*+*&1.%/!% 0%+*
(LEGENDExhibit 4.3-2: Corps Aquatic ResourcesBeaumont Summit Station Specific Plan EIRCity of BeaumontNot to scalePage 1738 of 2513

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-34 4.3 | Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

LEGEND_______________FFFFF FFFF FFFFF
F

FFFFFF FFFFFFF
FFFFFF
FFFFF

FFFFFF F








 

 

 

 

 

 

 




































Brookside Ave!"`$Cherry Valley Blvd+)$ -
).(
+1
 /# 0
+

 


F ")-)
)#(-

-
," -
)#(-
 -&
(

-

)+'
)#(-
.&/ +-_&)0
#+
-#)(







)( -&
(

- +,

+-" (
)--)'
"
(( &









,#(+),#)(
&

-.+ 0
& #-
"" -
&)0

-.+ ,
&

%#(!

)+
-"+ *
+
' - +0 -&
(

(
-".,

(-#
#*
- 
-)

()($.+#,#
-#)(
&Not to scaleExhibit 4.3-3: RWQCB Aquatic Resources Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan EIRCity of BeaumontPage 1740 of 2513

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-36 4.3 | Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

LEGEND_______________FFFFF FFFF FFFFF
F

FFFFFF FFFFFFF
FFFFFF
FFFFF

FFFFFF F








 

 

 

 

 

 

 




































Brookside Ave!"`$Cherry Valley BlvdProject BoundaryARDR Review Area (219.37 ac)F Photo PointOHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)Culvert_Flow Direction





Blue Elderberry (


ssp. 
) Stands (0.26 ac)Eucalyptus Woodland (0.07 ac)Mulefat Scrub (1.66 ac)Non-native Grassland (4.75 ac)Non-native Riparian (1.02 ac)Riversidean Sage Scrub (0.11 ac)Torrey’s Scrub Oak (
 
) Stands (0.13 ac)







Blue Elderberry (


ssp. 
) Stands (0.05 ac)Mulefat Scrub (0.28 ac)Non-native Riparian (0.69 ac)
 
BasinErosional FeatureSwaleDitchSheet Flow1 Features lacking a defined lake or streambed,and thus anticipated to be non-jurisdictional.Exhibit 4.3-4: CDFW Streambed and Riparian Habitats Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan EIRCity of BeaumontNot to scalePage 1742 of 2513

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-38 4.3 | Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

LEGENDCherry Valley BlvdBrookside Ave!"`$Project Boundary  





Mulefat ScrubNon-native RiparianBlue Elderberry (




ssp.


) StandsTorrey’s Scrub Oak(



) StandsRiversidean Sage ScrubChamise ChaparralNon-native GrasslandNon-native VegetationEucalyptus WoodlandDisturbed HabitatDeveloped 


Cooper's Hawk (



; WL, nesting)Horned Lark (


; WL)Least Bell’s Vireo ( 


;CA and Federally Listed Endangered Species)MacGillivray’s Warbler( 
; MSHCP)Swainson's Hawk (


; ST, nesting)Vaux's Swift (




; SSC, nesting)Not to scaleExhibit 4.3-5: Biological Resources Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan EIRCity of BeaumontNot to scalePage 1744 of 2513

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.3-40 4.3 | Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -1 4.4 | Cultural Resources

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to cultural resources, identify potential impacts that could result from Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Project (Project) implementation, and as necessary, recommend mitigation to avoid or reduce the significance of impacts.

Information in this section is based primarily on the following sources that are contained in Appendix D, Cultural Resources Assessment:
• PaleoWest. August 2021. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Beaumont Summit Station Project, Riverside County, California.

Additional resource information was obtained from available public resources, including among others, the City of Beaumont General Plan (GP). Additionally, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) letter in response to the Project’s Notice of Preparation is provided in Appendix K and provides guidance on Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 compliance.

Cultural Resources Terminology and Concepts
Key terms and concepts used in this section to describe and assess the potential cultural resource impacts are defined below:

Archeological Site. A site is defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains. Archeological remains usually take the form of artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools, vestiges of utilitarian or non-utilitarian objects), features (e.g., remna nts of walls, cooking hearths, or midden deposits), and ecological evidence (e.g., pollen remaining from plants that were in the area when the activates occurred). Prehistoric archaeological sites generally represent the material remains of Native American groups and their activities dating to the period before European contact. In some cases, prehistoric sites may contain evidence of trade contact with Europeans. Ethnohistoric archaeological sites are defined as Native American settlements occupied after t he arrival of European settlers in California.

Historic archaeological sites reflect the activities of non-native populations during the Historic period.

Artifact. An object that has been made, modified, or used by a human being.

Cultural Resource. A cultural resource is a location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources include archaeological resources and built environment resources (sometimes known as histo ric architectural resources), and may include sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were important in past human events. They may consist of physical remains or areas where significant human events occurred, even though evidence of the events no longer remains. Cultural resources also include places that are of traditional, cultural, or religious importance to social or cultural groups.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -2 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Study Area (or study area). All areas of potential permanent and temporary impacts for a reasonable worst -case development within a project site and off-site impact areas .

Ecofact. An object found at an archaeological site that has an archaeological significance but has not been technologically altered, such as seeds, pollens, or shells.

Ethnographic . Relating to the study of human cultures. “Ethnographic resources” represent the heritage resource of an ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans or African, European, Latin o, or Asian immigrants. They include traditional resource -collecting areas, ceremonial sites, value-imbued landscape features, cemeteries, shrines, or ethnic neighborhoods.

Historic Period . The period that begins with the arrival of the first non-native population and thus varies by area.

Historical Resource. This term is used for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is defined in the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15064.5) as: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements which a lead agency determines to by historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cult ural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Historical resources may also include tribal cultural resources including sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, objects, and/or archeological resources with value to a California Native American Tribe per PRC §21074.

Isolate. An isolated artifact or small group of artifacts that appear to reflect a single event, loci, or activity.

Isolates typically lack identifiable context and thus have little interpretative or research value. Isolates are not considered to be significant under CEQA and do not require avoidance mitigation (PRC § 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5). All isola tes located during the field effort, however, are recorded and the data are transmitted to the appropriate California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Information Center.

Lithic. Of or pertaining to stone. Specifically, in archaeology, lithi c artifacts are chipped or flaked stone tools, and the stone debris resulting from their manufacture.

Native American Sacred Site . An area that has been, or continues to be, of religious significance to Native American peoples, such as an area where relig ious ceremonies are practiced or an area that is central to their origins as a people.

Prehistoric Period . The era prior to 1772. The later part of the prehistoric period (post -1542) is also referring to as the protohistoric period in some areas, which mar ks a transitional period during which native populations began to be influenced by European presence resulting in gradual changes to their lifeways.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -3 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Stratigraphy . The natural and cultural layers of soil that make up an archaeological deposit, and the orde r in which they were deposited relative to other layers.

Tribal Cultural Resource . This term refers to a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, object, or archaeological resource with cultural value to a California Native American tribe th at is listed or eligible for listing in national, California, or local registers. A lead agency also has the discretion to determine that a resource is a tribal cultural resource if the determination is supported by substantial evidence. Tribal cultural resources are addressed in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources .

Unique Archeological Resource. This term is used for the purposes of CEQA and is defined in PRC § 21083.2(g) as an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly dem onstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it either contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available examples of its type; or, is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

4.4.2 Environmental Setting
As discussed in the Cultural Resource Assessment, the City of Beaumont (City) is within the San Gorgonio Pass region of southern California, south of the San Bernardino Mountains, within the San Jacinto Mountains of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. The region surrounding the City is a geologically complex area, in part due to movement along the San Andreas fault, Banning fault, San Gorgonio fault, and others. Annual precipitation in the area ranges from 18 to 20 inches. The City encompasses a portion of the South Coast Bioregion that is sparsely vegetated with scrub brush and grasses and populated by a variety of reptiles, small mammals, birds, and insects.

The Peninsular Ranges extend approximately 125 miles from the Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California and are bounded by the Elsinore fault zone and the Colorado Desert in the east and the Pacific Coast on the west. The geology in the northern reaches of the range, including the San Jacinto Mountains, consists of Paleozoic gneiss, schist, and other older metamorphic rocks; Mesozoic granitic rocks of the southern California batholith; and Cenozoic marine and terrestrial deposits. The highest point in the range is San Jacinto Peak at 10,805 feet above mean sea level.1 See Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources for the Ethnographic Setting.

Prehistoric Setting
Native American occupation of the Colorado Desert is typically divided into four cultural periods:

San Dieguito (circa 12,000–7,000 years B.P.); Pinto (circa 7,000 –4,000 B.P.); Amargosa (circa 4,000– 1,200 B.P.); and the Late Prehistoric Period (circa 1,200 –200 B.P.). These cultural periods exclude the controversial “Early Man” pre -projectile point materials from Calico. The prehistoric cultural setting

1 PaleoWest. July 2021. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Beaumont Summit Station Project, Riverside County, California.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -4 4.4 | Cultural Resources
discussed below begins at the Late Prehistoric Period based on information on known cultural resources located within the Project vicinity.

Late Prehistoric Period
The Late Prehistoric Period in the Colorado Desert is marked by the introduction of new artifact types and technological innovations of the previous Amargosa Period of the Late Archaic and defined as the Patayan Pattern. This period is characterized by the introduction of ceramics, including Tizon Brown Ware from the Peninsular Ranges, Colorado Buff Wares from t he Colorado River region, and the Salton Buff Ware from the Lake Cahuilla shoreline. New projectile point types, including Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular points, signify the introduction of the bow and arrow hunting technology, marking a pre-ceramic phase of the expansion of the earlier Amargosa assemblages perhaps as early as 1,500 B.P.

Techniques of floodplain horticulture were also introduced to the inhabitants along the Colorado River at the same time as ceramics. Additionally, burial pra ctices changed from extended inhumations to cremated remains, sometimes buried in ceramic vessels. Typical of the Hohokam culture from southern Arizona, these traits were introduced to the Colorado River inhabitants and gradually spread west to the Peninsular Ranges and Coastal Plains of southern California.

The Patayan Pattern is typified by several differing settlement and subsistence systems. Dispersed seasonal settlements, known as rancherias, were found along the Colorado River. These settlements were composed of jacal (i.e., adobe -style) structures, semi-subterranean pit houses, ramadas, or brush huts, depending on the season and types of settlement. Larger rancherias would disperse to upper terraces of the Colorado River and to special collection area s during the summer months, coinciding with the flood phase of the river, returning to the lower terraces for plant harvesting. At the eastern base of the Peninsular Ranges, the settlement pattern was typified by dispersed rancherias or villages situated a t the mouths of canyons supporting perennial streams, at the base of alluvial fans near springs, or down on the valley floor where a shallow water table allowed wells to be dug (e.g., at Indian Wells). In addition to these sites, specialized sites were located in all of the microenvironmental zones that were exploited seasonally.

Archaeologically, these specialized sites can range in characteristics from bedrock milling features and pot-drops along trails; to chipping stations and quarries; to temporary cam ps containing bone, shell, ceramics, flaked and ground stone tools; and ornamental items such as beads and pendants, as well as other occupational debris.2
Historical Setting
City of Beaumont
The Project is within an area that was historically sparsely populated into the late nineteenth century. An 1890 General Land Office (GLO) land patent indicates the Project area was part of 160 acres in the southeast quarter of Section 30 in Township 2 South, Range 1 West granted to Josiah McCoy; however, the 1901 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map does not indicate the property had been developed. By the early twentieth century, rural residential properties with scattered orchards were being developed in the region; however, the Project area, which has a creek, remained undeveloped in the late 1930s.

2 Ibid.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -5 4.4 | Cultural Resources
The Project area, which lies northwest of the townsite of Beaumont and west of the community of Cherry Valley, was advertised in the mid-1880s by the Cherry Valley Land and Water Company for sale for agriculture. An experimental agricultural station was established in Beaumont in 1909 to grow a variety of apples, and 120 acres north of the Beaumont townsite was cleared to sell for eucalyptus and grape cultivation, and for t he development of poultry ranches. At the time, the demand for acreage to establish poultry ranches far exceeded what was available.

Some of the earliest poultry ranches in the vicinity were established around 1909. L. R. Walton, president of the Poultry B reeders’ Association of Southern California, purchased 14 acres in Beaumont near the intersection of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Beaumont Avenue, east of the Project area. Walton was credited to have the “finest poultry ranches…in the state,” and he and his wife “as poultry experts proclaim this is the best poultry raising country they have found in the state .” During the 1930s and early 1940s, fruit orchards were the predominant crops in the area; however, droughts were a major stressor on the local economy. In 1934, federal aid was sought for the Cherry Valley region during a drought period when only 15 to 20 percent of normal rain fell, resulting in the region's orchardists seeking famine relief. Orchard crops, which were largely the main economic driver of the region, were heavily reliant on sufficient water to irrigate. By the 1940s, peaches were the leading crop in Cherry Valley, and local grange, agricultural ext ension service, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) bureau worked with individual ranchers to submit agricultural plans for the upcoming year to receive payments from the 1941 Agricultural Conservation Program. Cherry, peach, prune, and plum growers in the Cherry Valley and Beaumont region, as well as poultry ranchers, were the agricultural groups involved in the program to prevent overproduction and stabilize market values. By 1940, many ranchers in the region expressed interest in going into the poultry business, and presentations for poultry feeding and management were planned for the spring of 1941.

By the late 1940s, wrestling personality “Gorgeous George” and his business partner Herald Patton purchased the land adjacent to the Project area to es tablish a turkey ranch. A single-story Ranch style house was constructed at the northwest corner of the property in the late 1940s for Gorgeous George and his wife and a second residence was constructed circa 1951 for Patton and his wife. As part of the ranch development, turkey shelters, a processing plant, and other buildings were constructed on the parcel. Turkeys were raised on the property, processed, and sold to local grocery stores. The 1940 Riverside County Crop report livestock estimated there were 225,000 market turkeys and 2 million hatching eggs that year valued at $776,250. By 1950, C ounty livestock estimates of 284,500 market turkeys and 2,875,000 hatchings were valued at $2.6 million, an increase of 25 percent from the previous decade. However, the poultry market (hens and eggs) had grown over 350 percent within the same timeframe, and the number of poultry hens increased to 1.875 million hens laying 22.5 million dozen eggs.

In total the poultry and turkey industries accounted for 37 percent of the total County livestock valuation of $37.5 million, more than beef cattle and dairy cattle. By 1960, the value of the poultry industry in the C ounty was estimated at $19.75 million and the turkey industry lagged at only $6.6 million. In total, the poultry and turkey industries accounted for 38 percent of the total livestock valuation of $57 million for the C ounty.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -6 4.4 | Cultural Resources
As the poultry market continued to grow in Riverside County, Gorgeous George sold his turkey ranch in 1961 to Frank Draeger. Two years later, the property was sold to Bud Manheim who converted the turkey ranch property into an egg farm. Approximately 36 turkey shade structures and the processing building were removed and approximately 60 new chicken houses, a new egg processing plant, and other supporting buildings were constructed on the property soon thereafter.

From the early 1960s, members of the Manheim family, through their company Sunny -Cal Egg & Poultry Company, developed and operated an egg farm on the original Gorgeous George property and expanded their facility onto the Project area between 1978 and 1980 with the construction of additional chicken houses. By 1980, eggs accounted for almost $76 million of the $354 million total livestock estimates for the County; however, the poultry industry had been surpassed by dairy cattle as the County’s leading agricultural market. During the 1980s and 1990s, egg valuation trends continued to increase and peaked at $170 million in 1999; however, after that year, valuations declined as the price per dozen eggs unit decreased. Between 1999 and 2005, C ounty egg valuations plummeted by $52 million, and by late 2005 Sunny-Cal shuttered the egg farm after determining it was no longer economically feasible. After the closure of the Sunny-Cal facility, C ounty egg production dropped by 2 million the following year.

After the closure of the Sunny-Cal Egg facility in late 2005, the egg farm buildings and structures within the Project area and adjacent property were demolished leaving the concrete foundations in place. The late 1940s constructed Ranch house was demolished circa 2016 -2018; however, landscaping associated with the house remains in place. The remaining concrete block, single-story gable roof utility building was constructed circa 2006-2009 within an enclosed fence line with exterior equipment at the northeast corner of the Project area.3
Project Cultural Resources Inventory
A literature review and records search was requested from the Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, River side, on April 28, 2021. This inventory request included the Project area and a one-mile radius around the Project area, collectively termed the Project study area. The objective of the records search was to identify prehistoric or historical cultural reso urces that have been previously recorded within the study area during prior cultural resource investigations.

As part of the cultural resources inventory, historical maps and aerial images were also examined to characterize the developmental history of the Project area and surrounding area. The NAHC was also contacted to request a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) to identify any known Native American cultural resources that may be present in the Project area. A summary of the results of the record sear ch and background research are provided below.

Records Search Results and Additional Sources
At the time the cultural resource assessment was drafted, the EIC had not returned the results of the literature review and records search. An archaeological resource survey was completed on the Project area in 2013. The records search conducted for that effort did not identify any cultural resources within the Project area and no resources were documented during the survey effort. Additional sources

3 Ibid.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -7 4.4 | Cultural Resources
consulted during the cultural resource literature and data review include historical maps, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the Office of Historic Preservation Built Env ironment Resources Directory.

As part of the cultural resource assessment, the NAHC was contacted on April 28, 2021, for a review of the SLF. The objective of the SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the Project area of potential effects . The NAHC responded on May 17, 2021, stating that the SLF was completed with negative results. However, NAHC noted that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources within the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE).

Field Investigation and Results
A cultural resources survey of the Project area was completed from June 8 – 11, 2021. The fieldwork effort included an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire Project which was conducted by walking a series of parallel transects s paced at 10- to 15-meter (33- to 49-feet) intervals. The archaeologists carefully inspected all areas within the Project area likely to contain or exhibit sensitive cultural resources to ensure discovery and documentation of any visible, potentially significant cultural resources within the Project area. No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the survey; however, three historic period archaeological sites (21-0281-EH-001H, -002H, and -004H) were documented and evaluated for listing on the CRHR as they were all constructed prior to 1976. A description and evaluation summary for each of these resources is provided below.

Site 21-0218-EH -001H
This resource represents the archaeological remains of a residential structure. The site consists of a concrete pad foundation, a concrete rubble pile, and a series of trees surrounding the foundation. The foundation is partially covered by the concrete rubble pile and is cracked throughout with sections missing. The site is enclosed in a chain-link fence. The area south of the rubble has an elevated smaller platform with a flat, thin brick layer on top.

Based on a review of historic aerial images and archival research, the foundation appears to be what remains of a house foundation that formerly belong ed to wrestling personality “Gorgeous George .” Aerial imagery indicates the historic residence was built as early as 1959 and was demolished as recently as 2020 or early 2021. Aerial images suggest the residence was a large house with a pool on the south s ide. The chain link fence currently surrounding the property was likely put in place either for or after the demolition as a safety precaution.

CRHR Eligibility
According to archival research, the single -family residential structure was built in 1949 and w as an asymmetrical, one-story ranch-style house with a low-pitched roof. As previously stated, this home belonged to wrestling personality “Gorgeous George” and was built when he and his business partner, Herald Patton, developed the property for turkey fa rming. The residence was evaluated in 2004 by The Keith Companies as part of a potential historic district, the Gorgeous George historic district. The

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -8 4.4 | Cultural Resources
evaluation concluded that the residence is not eligible for listing on the CRHR. At the time of the evaluation, it was noted that the house and pool maintained high architectural integrity; however, they did not possess architectural uniqueness and, as such, did not hold any architectural value. Since the 2004 evaluation, the residence and associated features have been demolished. The site now contains the remnants of these structures. PaleoWest concurs with the original evaluation recommendations made for this resource. The current condition of the site has not revealed any new data or information and, as suc h, the 20-0281-EH-001H is not recommended eligible for listing on the CRHR.

Site 21-0218-EH -002H
This resource represents the archaeological remains of a residential structure. The site consists of a concrete pad and a rubble pile. There is a large rubble pile covering the western side of the pad as well as an overgrowth of vegetation making the measurements approximate. The pad is cracked and weathered.

The site is partially enclosed in a chain-link fence.

Based on a review of hist oric aerial images, the pad appears to be what remains of a long driveway that was positioned on the north side of a residential structure that is no longer extant. Archival research indicates the residence belonged to Herald Patton. Aerial imagery indicat es the historic residence and driveway were built as early as 1966 and were demolished as recently as 2020 or early 2021. Aerial images suggest the residence was a moderately sized house with a long driveway to ingress/egress from the east rather than directly from Cherry Valley Boulevard. The chain-link fence currently partially surrounding the property was likely put in place either for or after the demolition as a safety precaution.

CRHR Eligibility
According to archival research, the single -family residential structure was built in 1951 and was a small, simple ranch-style house on a concrete pad. As previously stated, this home belonged to Herald Patton, who was a business partner of wrestling personality “Gorgeous George .” The house was built after “Gorgeous George” and Herald Patton developed the property for turkey farming. The residence was evaluated in 2004 by The Keith Companies as part of a potential historic district, the Gorgeous George historic district. The evaluation concluded that the residence is not eligible for listing on the CRHR. At the time of the evaluation it was noted that the house had been significantly altered over the years and had a very low architectural integrity and, as such, do not hold any architectural value. At the time of this evaluation the residence was not documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms; however, a recommendation was made to record the resource prior to any potential demolition activities.

Since the 2004 evaluation, the residence has been demolished. The site now contains the remnants of what appears to be the long driveway leading to the house. PaleoWest concurs with the original evaluation recommendations made for this resource. The current condition of the site has not revealed any new data or information and, as such, the 20 -0281-EH-002H is not recommended eligible for listing on the CRHR.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -9 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Site 21-0218-EH -004H
This site includes the historic age portion of what remains of a poultry farming facility. The site includes the following features:
• a cinder block building (formerly a turkey barn)
• a series of large linear and parallel concrete foundations (formerly shade and roost structures) • a set of rectangular cinder block wells
• a set of large steel water tanks with an associated sma ll wooden electrical building • another wooden building housing a toilet and shower stalls • a series of cylindrical concrete silo foundations with associated wood/chicken feed processing building
• a small concrete building foundation
This facility was originally a turkey ranch developed by wrestling personality “Gorgeous George” and his business partner Herald Patton in the late 1940s. The property originally included a large sheet -metal turkey brooder house, more than 36 sheet -metal turkey houses (for shade and roosting), and a sheet - metal processing building. Many of these structures were subsequently removed when the ranch was converted to an egg farm after a couple of ownership transitions in 1961 and 1963.

CRHR Eligibility
In 2004, an evaluation of the exta nt structures was conducted by The Keith Companies. This evaluation included the “Gorgeous George Turkey Brooder House/Turkey Barn” and associated structures as part of a potential historic district, the Gorgeous George historic district. The evaluation co ncluded that the turkey barn and associated structures do not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing on the CRHR. The barn and associated structures had been compromised by modern alterations and maintenance over the years. In addition, while the original structures on the property were associated with “Gorgeous George,” the majority of the original structures were removed and/or had been significantly altered by the time the evaluation was conducted. As such, the poultry farming complex was not recommended eligible for listing on the CRHR.

Since the 2004 evaluation, more of the associated structures have been demolished. The site now contains the remnants of these structures. PaleoWest concurs with the original evaluation recommendations made for this resource. The current condition of the site has not revealed any new data or information and, as such, the 20-0281-EH-004H is not recommended eligible for listing on the CRHR.

4.4.3 Regulatory S etting
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966 and is codified in Title 16, Section 470 et seq. of the U.S. Code (USC). The goal of the Act is to ensure federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation's resources when their actions affect historic properties. Among the regulations of the NHPA,

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -10 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Properties (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP.

See Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Section 106 applies when two thresholds are met: 1) there is a federal or federally licensed action, including grants, licenses and permits, and 2) that action has the potential to affect properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Section 106 requires each federal agency to identify and assess the effects of its actions on historic resources. The responsible federal agency must consult with appropriate state and local officials, Indian Tribes, applicants for federal assistance and members of the public, and consider their views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final project decisions. The agency should also plan to involve the public and identify any other potential consulting parties. If the agency determines that it has no undertaking or that its undertaking is a type of activity that has no potential to affect historic properties, the agency has no further Section 106 obligations.

Pursuant to Section 106, impacts to a cultural site or artifact must be declared “significant,” “potentially significant” or “not significant.” Under NHPA regulations, impacts to “significant” archeological sites must be mitigated for, while “not significant” archeological remains need not. A “potentially significant” determination is utilized when there is not enough information to make a conclusive ruling. NHPA mitigation would not be necessary for archeological sites avoided during development.

National Register of Historic Places
Developed in 1981 pursuant to Title 36 C FR Section 60, the NRHP provides an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from des truction or impairment. It should be noted that the listing of a private property on the NRHP does not prohibit any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property. The listing of sites in California to the NRHP is initiated through an application submitted to the State Office of Historical Preservation (OHP). Applications deemed suitable for potential consideration are handled by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). All NRHP listings for sites in California are also automatically added to the CRHR by the State of California. The listing of a site on the NRHP does not generally result in any specific physical protection. Among other things, however, it does create an additional level of CEQA (and NEPA [National Environmental Protection Act ]) review to be satisfied prior to the approval of any discretionary action occurring that might adversely affect the resource.

National Historic Landmarks Program
The National Historic Landmarks Program, developed in 1982 a nd as authorized by the Historic Site Act, identifies and designates National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) to “encourage the long -range preservation of nationally-significant properties that illustrate or commemorate the history and prehistory of the U.S.” The program is administered by the Department of the Interior pursuant to 36 CFR Section 65.5. Unlike any of the other state or federal registries, sites listed on the NHL are explicitly preserved and protected from harm under federal law.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -11 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Antiquities Act of 1906
The only federal law protecting fossil resources on public lands is the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433). Enacted when Theodore Roosevelt was president, the Antiquities Act was designed to protect nonrenewable fossil and cultural resources fr om indiscriminate collecting. NEPA (42 USC 4321) directs Federal agencies to use all practicable means to “…preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage…”.

Actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix C of Tit le 33 CFR Section 325 establishes procedures to be followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to fulfill the requirements of the NHPA, as well as other applicable historic preservation laws and Presidential directives related to historic resource s potentially affected by USACE actions (including issuance of permits pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act [CWA]). It specifies that when a project’s authorization requires a federal action (for example, issuance of permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA), the project must comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA.

State
Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 are addressed in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources .

California Register of Historical Resources
The State’s OHP manages and oversees the CRHR, which is intended to serve as “an authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archeological resources.” As outlined in PRC § 5020 et seq., resources listed must meet one of four “significance criteria” related to events, people, construction/artistic value or information. Sites must also retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance. The CRHR includes a number of type resources, including: all properties listed in or determined formally eligible for listing in the NRHP; all California Historical Landmarks from #770 onward; specific California Historical Landmarks issued prior to #770 and certain California Points of Historical Interest, as deemed appropriate for listing by the California Historic Resources Commission; and, any properties nominated per OHP regulations. California Historical Landmarks are intended to recognize resources of statewide significance. Points of Historical Interest recognize resources of local or countywide s ignificance. Lastly, as mentioned above, all NRH P listings within California are automatically added to the CRHR. The listing of a site on a California State register does not generally result in any specific physical protection. Among other things, however, it does create an additional level of CEQA review to be satisfied prior to any discretionary action occurring that might adversely affect the resource.

California Code of Regulations
CCR Title 14 § 1427 recognizes that “California’s archaeological resou rces are endangered by urban development and population growth and by natural forces.” Accordingly, the State Legislature finds that “these resources need to be preserved in order to illuminate and increase public knowledge concerning the historic and prehistoric past of California.” Lastly, it states that any person “not the owner thereof, who willfully injures, disfigures, defaces or destroys any object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value, whether situated on private lands or within any public park or place, is guilty of a

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -12 4.4 | Cultural Resources
misdemeanor.” The code also specifies that it is a misdemeanor to “alter any archaeological evidence found in any cave or to remove any materials from a cave.” California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the PRC), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a proje ct, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.

California Environmental Quality Act
The Project is subject to compliance with CEQA, as amended. Compliance with CEQA statutes and guidelines requires both public and private projects with financing or approval from a public agency to assess the project’s impact on cultural resources (PRC §§ 21082, 21083.2 and 21084 and CCR § 10564.5).

The first step in the process is to identify cultural resources that may be impac ted by the project and then determine whether the resources are “historically significant” resources.

CEQA defines historically significant resources as “resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)” (PRC § 5024.1). A cultural resource may be considered historically significant if the resource is 45 years old or older, possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meets any of the following criter ia for listing on the CRHR:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or,

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (PRC § 5024.1).

Cultural resources are buildings, sites, humanly modified landscapes, traditional cultural properties, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that if a project will have a significant impact on important cultural resources, deemed “historically significant,” then project alternatives and mitigation measures must be considered.

Local
Beaumont General Plan
The Beaumont GP Update s erves as the City's blueprint for future development and decision-making.

Goals and policies relevant to the Project that pertain to cultural resources include:

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -13 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal 8.11: A City where archaeological, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and historical places are identified, recognized, and preserved.

Policy 8.11.1 Avoid or when avoidance is not feasible, minimize impacts to sites with significant archaeological, paleontological, cultural and tribal cultural resources, to the extent feasible.

Policy 8.11.2 Comply with notification of California Native American tribes and organizations of proposed projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural re sources, per the requirements of AB 52 and SB 18.

Policy 8.11.4 Require that any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the City be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, California Public Resources Code Amended Statutes 1982 Chapter 1492, California Public Resources Code Statutes 2006, Chapter 863, Section 1, CA Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, SB 447 (Chapter 404, Statutes of 1987) and other appropriate laws.

Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.125 – Certificates of Appropriateness This section outlines the process intended to provide various levels of historic protection and to preserve existing elements of historic resources in the City, a certificate of appropriateness. The establishment of a certificate of appropriateness is intended to protect structures of historic significance including areas of architectural, cultural, historic, economic, political, and social importance from the adverse effects of any alteration, demolition, or removal. A certificate of appropriateness is required for the exterior alteration, demolition, removal or relocation of any historic resource or potential historic resource. A historic resource is defined as: a resource identified in a City-approved historic or cultural resources study; a structure over 50 years old; and/or a structure potentially eligible for registration on a local, state, or national register. Minor modifications that do not involve new construction, additions to, or demolition of existing structures shall be reviewed and approved or denied by the Community Development Director.

Modifications that do not meet the criteria for Community Development Director review shall be reviewed and approved or denied by the City Planning Commission after a public hearing.

4.4.4 Impact Thresholds and Significan ce Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning cultural resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pur suant to § 15064.5; or

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -14 4.4 | Cultural Resources
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning cultural resources. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.

Approach to An alysis
This analysis of impacts on cultural resources examines the Project ’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on site conditions at the time of NOP distribution (September 22, 2021); field reconnaissance conducted by PaleoWest; review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs ; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that any components of the Project may result in “substantial” adverse effects on historical and archaeological resources and human remains cons iders the existing site’s historical resource value and the severity of the Project implementation on resources that may be considered historical.

4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.4-1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
There are no historic-age resources present on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance
No impact.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -15 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4-2 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction
Construction of the Project would not cause a substantial adver se change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. As a result of the cultural resource records search and intensive pedestrian survey, three historic period archaeological sites were documented on the property (21-0281-EH-001H, -002H, and -004H). These resources consist of the remnants of two residential structures and the remnants of a large poultry farming facility, all of which were constructed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. These resources were previously evaluated, when they were still extant, and did not meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR. PaleoWest concurs with the original evaluation efforts as the current condition of the resources does not provide any additional data or information that would alter those recommendations. No further cultural resource management is recommended for these resources.

Additionally, the SLF records search did not identify any sacred lands or sites in the area. However, as stated in the NAHC response letter, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area.

A significant impact would occur if grading and construction activities would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolog ical resource determined to be “historic” or “unique.” According to CEQA, if an archaeological resource is neither historic nor unique, the effects of a project on that resource will not be considered significant effects on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(C)(4)).

Conservatively, it is assumed that any as -yet unidentified archaeological resources at the Project site would be impacted through grading and construction activities. However, the significance of the impact would be based upon the criteria presented in the thresholds of significance (i.e., is the archaeological resource determined to be “historic” or “unique”). Because the potential for discovery and damage or destruction of unknown resources exists and would be potentially significant, mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures (MM) CUL-1 through MM CUL-2 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.

Operations
Following completion of construction and disturbances of the Project site, the Project would include use for e-commerce and commercial development. These land use operations would not impact any known or unknown archaeological resources as the operations would occur within the building(s) and designated operational areas. Therefore, operation of the Project site would have no impact on archaeological resources.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -16 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during Project-related ground- disturbing activities in undisturbed native sediments.

MM CUL-2 In the event that potentially significant cultural materials are encountered during Project -related ground-disturbing activities, all work will be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the archaeological resource.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact 4.4-3 Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Construction
Past land uses of the Project site include residential and poultry farming. The Project site is currently vacant. No cemeteries exist onsite. The closest cemetery, Desert Lawn Funeral Home and Memorial Park, is located approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the Project site, across Brookside Avenue and Interstate 10. An intensive pedestrian survey of the Project site was conducted June 8 – 11, 2021, during which time no human remains were identified. A records search was requested from the EIC for the Project area and a one-mile buffer; however, at the time the cultural resource assessment was drafted, the results had not yet been provided. The EIC is still experiencing delays as a result of the current COVID -19 protocols and guidelines. A search of the SLF was also conducted, with ne gative results.

The Project site includes a series of seasonal drainages. The presence of this water source would indicate this area is moderately sensitive for cultural resources. Note that some, but not all, of the onsite drainages are located within Planning Area 3: Open Space and would not be affected by ground disturbing activities.

With that, the potential exists for Project construction to reveal unknown human remains. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accord ance with applicable laws, including California HSC §§ 7050.5-7055 and California PRC § 5097.98 and § 5097.99. California HSC §§ 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains. Specifically, California HSC § 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. California HSC § 7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be co ntacted immediately. As required by state law, the procedures set forth in PRC § 5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would then designate the Most Likely Descendant of the unearthe d human remains.

It is unlikely that any human remains would be encountered during ground disturbing activities given that the Project site is already partially disturbed, and the onsite drainages are ephemeral 4 (i.e., flows only in

4 Rock Biological Consulting. 2021. Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -17 4.4 | Cultural Resources
direct response to precipitation). However, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during construction activities. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California HSC §§ 7050.5-7055 and California PRC §§ 5097.98 and 5097.99), the Project’s impacts concerning potential to disturb human remains, would be reduced to a less than significant.

Operations
Occupation of the Project site would not further impact human remains. The Project would consist of e-commerce and commercial buildings and therefore, would not cause a substantial adverse effect to undiscovered human remains.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact .

4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of the cultural resource impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Beaumont, according to the related projects; see Table 4-1, Cu mulative Projects .

As concluded above, the Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, as none are present on the Project site. Therefore, no cumulative impact concerning historical resources would occur.

As discussed above, the potential exists for undiscovered archaeological resources to be adversely impacted during Project construction. With implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources. Cumulative projects could involve actions that damage known or as -yet undiscovered archaeological cultural resources specific to those development sites. However , as with the Project , all cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project -by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to cultural resources. This would include studies of historical and archaeological cultural resources that are present or could be present within a development site.

Additionally, cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the established federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning the protection of cultural resources on a project -by-project basis. Where significant or potentially significant impacts are identified, implementation of all feasible site-specific mitigation would be required to avoid or reduce impacts. The Project ’s cumulative impacts to archaeological cultural resources would be less than significant given compliance with the established regulatory framework and site -specific mitigation would be required.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.4 -18 4.4 | Cultural Resources
As concluded above, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during Project construction activities; however, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard following compliance with the established state regulatory framework. Cumulative development could impact previously undiscovered human remains during constructi on. However, all cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project -by-project basis to evaluate the site -specific archaeological sensitivity. Additionally, cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the established stat e regulatory framework concerning the discovery of human remains on a project -by- project basis. The Project ’s cumulative impacts concerning the potential to disturb human remains would be less than significant given compliance with the established regulatory framework would be required.

4.4.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable cultural resources impacts have been identified.

4.4.8 References
City of Beaumont. 2020. Beaumont General
Plan. https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont -GPU_Final-rev- 22521.

City of Beaumont. 2020. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont General Plan, SCH No. 2018031022. https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR -090720.

PaleoWest. 2021. Cultural Resource Assessment for The Beaumont Summit Station Project, Riverside County, California.

Rocks Biological Consulting. 2021. Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report .

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-1 4.5 | Energy

4.5 ENERGY

4.5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing setting as it relates to energy conservation, identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements, and presents the criteria used to evaluate potential impacts related to use of fuel and energy upon implementation of the Project. Energy calculations for the Project are included in Appendix F.

4.5.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Electricity and Natural Gas Supplies
Electricity
Electricity as a utility is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into electricity. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on- site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands.

Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W) while energy use is measured in watt-hours (Wh). For example, if a light bulb has a capacity rating of 100 W, the energy required to keep the bulb on for 1 hour would be 100 Wh. If ten 100 W bulbs were on for 1 hour, the energy required would be 1,000 Wh or 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh). On a utility scale, a generator’s capacity is typically rated in megawatts (MW), which is one million watts, while energy use is measured in megawatt-hours (MWh) or gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is one billion watt-hours.

Electrical services are provided to the area by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electricity to approximately 15 million people, 180 incorporated cities, 15 counties, 5,000 large businesses, and 280,000 small businesses throughout its 50,000-square-mile service area.1 SCE produces and purchases their energy from a mix of conventional and renewable generating sources. Table 4.5-1, Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2019) shows the SCE electric power mix in 2019 compared to the statewide 2019 power mix. In 2020, electricity use attributable to the County of Riverside was approximately 16,878 GWh from residential and non-residential sectors.2

1 SCE. (2020). By the Numbers: Who We Serve. Retrieved from SEC Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are .

Accessed March 17, 2020.
2 California Energy Commission (CEC). (2020). Electricity Consumption by County. Retrieved from CEC Website:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx . Accessed July 16, 2021.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-2 4.5 | Energy
Table 4.5-1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2019) Energy Resources 2019 SCE Power Mix 2019 CA Power Mix
Eligible Renewable: 35.1%: 31.7%:

Biomass and Biowaste 0.6% 2.4%
Geothermal 5.9% 4.8%
Eligible Hydroelectric 1% 2%
Solar 16% 12.3%
Wind 11.5% 10.2%
Coal 0% 3%
Large Hydroelectric 7.9% 14.6%
Natural Gas 16.1% 34.2%
Nuclear 8.2% 9%
Other 0.1% 0.2%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 32.6% 7.3%
Total 100% 100%
1 Electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.

Source: SCE. (2020). 2019 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. Retrieved from SCE Website:
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/SCE_2019PowerContentLabel.pdf . Accessed November 17, 2021 Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the service provider for Project area, services approximately 21 million people in a 20,000-square mile service territory. SoCalGas has four storage fields; Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa del Rey, as well as a combined storage capacity of approximately 134 billion cubic feet. According to the CEC, natural gas demand in the SoCalGas service area was 5,156 million therms in 2018.3
SoCalGas projects that total demand for natural gas will decline at an annual rate of 0.74 percent from 2018 to 2035.4 The decline in demand is due to modest economic growth, California Public Utilities Commission mandated energy efficiency standards and programs, tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards, renewable electricity goals, the decline in commercial and industrial demand, and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure.

Energy Use
Energy use is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy use in California was 7,881 trillion BTU in 20175 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available), which equates to an average of approximately 200 million BTU per capita. Of California’s total energy use, the breakdown by sector is approximately 40 percent transportation, 23 percent industrial, 19 percent commercial, and 18 percent residential. Electricity and natural gas in California are generally used by stationary sources such as residences, commercial sites, and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum use is generally

3 California Energy Commission (CEC). (2020). Gas Consumption by Southern California Gas. Retrieved from CEC Website:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx . Accessed March 17, 2020. 4 California Gas and Electric Utilities (2018). 2018 California Gas Report https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf . Accessed March 17, 2020. 5 US Energy Information Administration (2020). California Energy Consumption Estimates. Retrieved from EIA Website:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA . Accessed March 17, 2020.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-3 4.5 | Energy
accounted for by transportation-related energy use. In 2019, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for 15,338,758,756 gallons of gasoline.6

4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Public Law 110-140) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. The Act’s goal is to achieve energy security in the United States by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on greenhouse gas (GHG) capture and storage. Under the EISA, the RFS program (RFS2) was expanded in several key ways:
• Expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; • Increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022;
• Established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each; and
• Required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

RFS2 lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's renewable fuels sector.

The EISA also includes a variety of new standards for lighting and for residential and commercial appliance equipment. The equipment includes residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.

State
Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05) and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Reductions in overall energy consumption

6 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). (2020). Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons. Retrieved from CDTFA Website:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm accessed March 17, 2020.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-4 4.5 | Energy
have been implemented to reduce emissions. See Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions for a further discussion of AB 32.

In September 2016, the Governor signed into legislation SB 32, which builds on AB 32 and requires the state to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With SB 32, the Legislature also passed AB 197, which provides additional direction for updating the Scoping Plan to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target codified in SB 32. CARB has published a draft update to the Scoping Plan and has received public comments on this draft but has not released the final version.

Additional energy efficiency measures beyond the current regulations are needed to meet these goals as well as the AB 32 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the SB 32 goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (see Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a discussion of AB 32 and SB 32). Part of the effort in meeting California’s long-term reduction goals include reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent, increasing from one- third to more than one-half of California’s electricity derived from renewable sources, doubling the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants, and managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24”, California’s energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings, was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. The 2016 Title 24 standards became effective on January 1, 2017. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2016 Title 24 standards are 28 percent more efficient than previous standards for residential development. The standards offer developers better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020, promote photovoltaic systems in newly constructed residential buildings and additional lighting standards. With rooftop solar electricity generation, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. With the new lighting standards, nonresidential buildings would use 30 percent less energy than buildings built under the 2016 standards. The CBEES updates focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings and include requirements that will enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and future solar electric and thermal system installations.

The Title 24, Part 6 was created as part of the California Building Standards Code by the California Building Standards Commission in 1978 to establish statewide building energy efficiency standards to reduce California’s energy use. These standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-5 4.5 | Energy
non-residential, which describe requirements for documentation and certificates that the building meets the standards. These provisions include mandatory requirements for efficiency and design of the following types of systems, equipment, and appliances:
• Air Conditioning Systems
• Heat Pumps
• Water Chillers
• Gas- and Oil-Fired Boilers
• Cooling Equipment
• Water Heaters and Equipment
• Pool and Spa Heaters and Equipment
• Gas-Fired Equipment Including Furnaces and Stoves/Ovens • Windows and Exterior Doors
• Joints and Other Building Structure Openings (Envelope) • Insulation and Cool Roofs
• Lighting Control Devices
• Solar Photovoltaic Systems
The standards include additional mandatory requirements for space conditioning (cooling and heating), water heating, indoor and outdoor lighting systems, as well as equipment in non-residential, high-rise residential, and hotel or motel buildings. Mandatory requirements for low-rise residential buildings cover indoor and outdoor lighting, fireplaces, space cooling and heating equipment (including ducts and fans), and insulation of the structure, foundation, and water piping. The standards require solar photovoltaic systems for new homes. In addition to the mandatory requirements, the standards call for further energy efficiency that can be provided through a choice between performance and prescriptive compliance approaches. Separate sections apply to low-rise residential and to non-residential, high-rise residential, and hotel or motel buildings. In buildings designed for mixed use (e.g., commercial and residential), each section must meet the standards applicable to that type of occupancy.

The performance approach set forth under these standards provides for the calculation of an energy budget for each building and allows flexibility in building systems and features to meet the budget. The energy budget addresses space-conditioning (cooling and heating), lighting, and water heating.

Compliance with the budget is determined using a CEC-approved computer software energy model. The alternative prescriptive standards require demonstrating compliance with specific minimum efficiency for components of the building such as building envelope insulation R-values, fenestration (areas, U-factor and solar heat gain coefficients of windows and doors) and heating and cooling, water heating and lighting system design requirements. These requirements vary depending on the building’s location in the state’s 16 climate zones.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-6 4.5 | Energy
California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CBEES) are updated on an approximately three-year cycle as technology and methods have evolved. As a result of new law under Assembly Bill (AB) 970, passed in the fall of 2000 in response to the state’s electricity crisis, an emergency update of the standards went into effect in June 2001. The CEC then initiated an immediate follow-on proceeding to consider and adopt updated standards that could not be completed during the emergency proceeding. The 2013 Standards went into effect July 1, 2014. The 2016 CBEES went into effect on January 1, 2017 and improve upon the 2013 CBEES for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 CBEES were adopted on May 9, 2018 and took effect on January 1, 2020. Under the 2019 standards, homes will use about 53 percent less energy and nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy than buildings under the 2016 standards. The CBEES updates focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings and include requirements that will enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and future solar electric and thermal system installations.

California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality.

CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code became effective January 1, 2020.
2008 California Energy Action Plan Update
The 2008 Energy Action Plan Update provides a status update to the 2005 Energy Action Plan II, which is the State of California’s principal energy planning and policy document (CPUC and CEC, 2008). The plan continues the goals of the original Energy Action Plan, describes a coordinated implementation plan for State energy policies, and identifies specific action areas to ensure that California’s energy is adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally sound. First-priority actions to address California’s increasing energy demands are energy efficiency, demand response (i.e., reduction of customer energy usage during peak periods in order to address system reliability and support the best use of energy infrastructure), and the use of renewable sources of power. If these actions are unable to satisfy the increasing energy and capacity needs, the plan supports clean and efficient fossil-fired generation.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The California Energy Commission adopted Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations §§ 1601 through 1608) on October 11, 2006. The regulations were approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. While these regulations are now often

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-7 4.5 | Energy
viewed as “business-as-usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

Senate Bill 1078 and 107; Executive Order S-14-08, S-21-09, and SB 2X SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010. In November 2008, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which expands the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. In September 2009, then- Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which directs the CARB under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the state meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In April 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 2X, which legislated the prior Executive Order S-14-08 renewable standard.

Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 350, and Senate Bill 100 In April 2015, the Governor issued Executive Order B-30-15, which established a GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 350 (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) advanced these goals through two measures. First, the law increases the renewable power goal from 33 percent renewables by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. Second, the law requires the CEC to establish annual targets to double energy efficiency in buildings by 2030. The law also requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct electric utilities to establish annual efficiency targets and implement demand-reduction measures to achieve this goal. In 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Appendix F to CEQA Guidelines
Public Resources Code §21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 require EIRs to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy caused by a project. In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the California State Legislature adopted AB 1575, which created the CEC. The CEC’s statutory mission is to forecast future energy needs, license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger, develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources, plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies, and promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code §21100(b)(3) to require EIRs to consider the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy caused by a project. In addition, CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 was adopted in 1998 which requires that an EIR describe feasible mitigation measures which would minimize the inefficient and unnecessary use of energy. Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F.

Pursuant to Appendix F, an EIR must include a “discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects… .” However, because lead agencies have not consistently included such analysis in their EIRs, California's Natural Resources Agency amended Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines in 2009 “to ensure

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-8 4.5 | Energy
that lead agencies comply with the substantive directive in §21100(b)(3).” CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F lists environmental impacts and mitigation measures that an EIR may include. What is required is a “discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Potential impacts that may be discussed include:
• The Project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the Project including construction, operation, maintenance, or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. • The effects of the Project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
• The effects of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
• The degree to which the Project complies with existing energy standards. • The effects of the Project on energy resources.
• The Project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F assists EIR preparers in determining whether a Project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy. The discussion below analyzes the Project’s effect on energy resources.

Local
Sustainable Beaumont
In 2015, the City of Beaumont developed and approved Sustainable Beaumont: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions, a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The City committed to providing a more livable, equitable, and economically vibrant community through the incorporation of energy efficient features and the reduction of GHG emissions. (Beaumont 2040 Plan, p. 198.) The Sustainable Beaumont Plan details a variety of goals, policies, and actions at the community and municipal levels aimed at conserving energy and reducing emissions in order to meet its GHG reduction targets. By implementing Statewide and local reduction measures, the City would achieve its reductions targets for 2020 and 2030. (SB 2015, p. 64.)
Beaumont Municipal Code
The following chapter of the Beaumont Municipal Code address energy conservation topics:

Title 15 – Building and Construction, Chapter 15.19 – Energy Code Chapter 15.19 of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code (Beaumont MC) adopted the California Energy Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California through the approval of ordinance no. 1079 § 14, 12-6-2016.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-9 4.5 | Energy
City of Beaumont 2040 General Plan and Revised Zoning Ordinance This section presents those features of the proposed Project that reduce potential energy impacts.

The Beaumont 2040 Plan goals, policies, and implementation actions that reduce potential energy impacts include:

Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal 3.1: A City structure that enhances the quality of life of residents, meets the community’s vision for the future, and connects new growth areas together with established Beaumont neighborhoods.

Policy 3.1.3 Establish or preserve areas for mixed-use districts that contain a mix of retail, service, office, and residential uses in a compact, walkable setting along SR-79 (between I-10 and SR-60).

Policy 3.1.8 Require new major centers and larger residential developments to be accessible to major transportation facilities, a well-connected street network, and safe and efficient access to transit.

Policy 3.1.11 Strive to create development patterns such that most residents are within one-half mile walking distance of a variety of neighborhood-serving uses, such as parks, grocery stores, restaurants, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, banks, hair salons, pharmacies, religious institutions, and similar uses.

Goal 3.3: A City that preserves its existing residential neighborhoods and promotes development of new housing choices.

Policy 3.3.7 Require well-connected walkable neighborhoods with quality access to transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Goal 3.7: A City with a high-quality pedestrian environment for people, fostering interaction, activity, and safety.

Policy 3.7.1 Require that all new neighborhoods be designed and constructed to be pedestrian friendly and include features such as short blocks, wide sidewalks, tree-shaded streets, buildings oriented to streets or public spaces, traffic-calming features, convenient pedestrian street crossings, and safe streets that are designed for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

Policy 3.7.2 Create pedestrian-oriented streetscapes by establishing unified street tree planting, sidewalk dimensions and maintenance, pedestrian amenities, and high-quality building frontages in all new development.

Goal 3.8: A City that encourages a healthy lifestyle for people of all ages, income levels, and cultural backgrounds.

Policy 3.8.1 Design neighborhoods to emphasize connectivity and promote physical activity, including increased pedestrian access by promoting high-density, mixed use

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-10 4.5 | Energy
development, access to existing and proposed transit, and the use of bicycles and walking as alternatives to driving.

Policy 3.8.3 Ensure the design of context-specific streetscaping that promotes safe travel for all users, including signs, curbs, trees and landscaping to provide a more pleasant environment for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Policy 3.8.6 Support Safe Routes to School partnerships that increase the number of school children who walk, bicycle, use public transportation and carpool to and from school.

Implementation LUCD10 Development Monitoring. Establish a monitoring and reporting system for land use development within the City. Key metrics may include housing by type and income level, commercial floor area, jobs, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions. Report annual changes to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Implementation LUCD22 Tree Planting Program. Partner with local non-profit organizations to implement a tree planting program (planting of trees on City-owned and private property).

Mobility Element
Goal 4.1: Promote smooth traffic flows and balance operational efficiency, technological, and economic feasibility.

Policy 4.1.4 Strengthen partnerships with transit management organizations to develop citywide demand management programs and incentives to encourage non-automotive transportation options.

Policy 4.1.5 Require residential and commercial development standards that strengthen connections to transit and promote walking to neighborhood services.

Goal 4.2: Support the development of a comprehensive network of complete streets throughout the City that provides safe, efficient, and accessible connectivity for users of all ages and abilities.

Policy 4.2.3 Design residential streets to minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate, without compromising connectivity for emergency first responders, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Goal 4.3: A healthy transportation system that promotes and improves pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety in Beaumont.

Policy 4.3.3 Support Safe Routes to School partnerships that increase the number of school children who walk, bicycle, use public transit, and carpool to and from school.

Policy 4.3.5 Integrate land use and transportation infrastructure to support higher-density development, a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses, and a connected system of sidewalks, bikeways, greenways, and transit.

City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

April 2022 4.5-11 4.5 | Energy
Goal 4.4: A balanced transportation system that provides adequate facilities for people in the City to bicycle, walk, or take transit to their destinations.

Policy 4.4.1 Ensure connectivity of pedestrian and cyclist facilities to key destinations, such as downtown, commercial centers, and employment centers, and link these facilities to each other by providing trails along key utility corridors.

Policy 4.4.4 Develop a comprehensive trails network to connect neighborhoods and key attraction areas.

Policy 4.4.5 Promote policies and programs that encourage the use of transit and increased transit service.

Goal 4.5: Work collaboratively with regional transit agencies to enhance existing transit facilities and promote the implementation of future transit opportunities.

Policy 4.5.1 Collaborate with transit agencies and RCTC to ensure the development of transit facilities in Beaumont can accommodate future rail service between the Coachella Valley and City of Riverside.

Policy 4.5.3 Work with SunLine Transit and RCTC to analyze and forecast commuter traffic trends and develop strategies to make a more efficient transit system.

Goal 4.7: Manage and provide an adequate parking supply that meets the needs of people who live, work, and visit Beaumont.

Policy 4.7.2 Encourage developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, joint parking districts, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking time of 10 minutes or less.

Implementation M3 TDM Plan Requirements. Update the City’s development processing requirements to require that TDM plans and strategies are developed for residential and employment land uses that reduce vehicle trips or vehicle trip lengths.

Implementation M4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Update the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Plan with a focus on connectivity to transit, neighborhood centers, and schools while identifying state-of-the-practice techniques for improving safety.

Implementation M29 Zoning Code Update. Update the City’s parking Standards to:
▪ Provide a reduction in parking standards if comprehensive TDM programs are provided.
▪ Increase the number of electric vehicle charging stations in parking areas.

Economic Development and Fiscal Element
Goal 5.1: A dynamic local economy that attracts diverse business and investment.

Policy 5.1.4 Encourage growth and expansion of businesses and employment centers near public transit to increase transportation options for employees and limit traffic congestion.