Beaumont City Council
March 19, 2024

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources D. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
GLA biologists surveyed the Project site for riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool/seasonal pool habitat, including features with the potential to support fairy shrimp on multiple occasions during the 2019 rainfall season, including April 15, May 1, November 19, and December 6, 2019. To assess for vernal/seasonal pools (including fairy shrimp habitat), GLA biologists evaluated the topography of the site, including whether the site contained depressional features/topography with the potential to become inundated; whether the site contained soils associated with vernal/seasonal pools; and whether the site supported plants that suggested areas of localized ponding.

4.4.5 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, significance determinations utilized in this section are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Section IV of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects to biological resources, and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project's impacts to biological resources:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

4.4.6 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES The Project includes the following Regulatory Requirements (RR) and Project Design Features (PDFs) that serve to reduce the Project's impacts. The RRs and PDFs will be included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure implementation.

RR 4-1 The Project Applicant is required to pay MSHCP development fees.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources PDF 4-1
PDF 4-2
The Project would conserve 230.82 acres of open space, including 80.63 acres of native vegetation communities (1.20 acres of Southern Riparian Scrub, 1.28 acres of Chaparral and 78.15 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub).

The Project would result in permanent impacts to vegetation communities described for conservation by the MSHCP associated with Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 totaling 109.69 acres and would impact the following communities: chaparral (0.21 acre), Riversidean sage scrub (24.40 acres), non-native grassland (82.13 acres), and southern riparian scrub (0.03 acre). To offset these impacts, the Project will conserve 133.62 acres of replacement lands through the Criteria Refinement Process, including

0.32 acre of chaparral, 45.85 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, 86.03 acres of non-native grassland, and 0.22 acre of southern riparian scrub. These replacement lands are in areas that are not described for conservation by the Cell Criteria for Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125.

4.4.7 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Impacts (or effects) can occur in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or animals, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability.

Indirect impacts pertain to those impacts that result in a change to the physical environment, but which is not immediately related to a project. Indirect (or secondary) impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur at a different time or place. Indirect impacts can occur at the urban/wildland interface of projects, to biological resources located downstream from projects, and other off -site areas where the effects of the project may be experienced by plants and wildlife.

Examples of indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light; predation by domestic pets; competition with exotic plants and animals; introduction of toxics, including pesticides; and other human disturbances such as hiking, off -road vehicle use, unauthorized dumping, etc. Indirect impacts are often attributed to the subsequent day-to-day activities associated with project build -out, such as increased noise, the use of artificial light sources, and invasive ornamental plantings that may encroach into native areas. Indirect effects may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as "edge effects" and may result Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
in a slow replacement of native plants by non-native invasives, as well as changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.

A. Special -Status Plants
As discussed above, no special -status plants were detected at the Project site during focused plant surveys. Therefore, the Project would not result in an impact to special -status plants, and no impact would occur.

B. Special -Status Animals
As discussed above, the Project site has the potential to support a number of species (raptors and bats), that might forage at the site, but would not otherwise use the site for live-in habitat, including for nesting (or roosting in the case of bats). As such, these impacts are not evaluated in the context of CEQA significance since special status for these species is in the context of breeding. The following special -status species have the potential to use the site as live-in habitat, including Crotch bumble bee, California glossy snake, coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, red -diamond rattlesnake, coastal California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, American badger, bobcat, Dulzura pocket mouse, mountain lion, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, southern grasshopper mouse, SKR, and San Diego black - tailed jackrabbit.

1. Crotch Bumble Bee
Crotch bumble bee was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within relatively flat areas vegetated with the Riversidean sage scrub community within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.13 acres of habitat with the potential to support Crotch bumble bee.

Furthermore, if Crotch bumble bee remains as a State Candidate Endangered species or has otherwise been confirmed as a State Endangered species at the time of Project site disturbance and the bumble bee is confirmed present, impacts to bumble bee would be potentially significant.

2. California Glossy Snake and Southern Grasshopper Mouse California Glossy Snake and Southern grasshopper mouse were not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site.

The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support the California glossy snake and Southern grasshopper mouse. Although the California glossy snake and Southern grasshopper mouse are not covered species under the MSHCP, the conservation lands that comprise the MSHCP Reserve include habitat suitable to support these species on a regional level. As such, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, from both the proposed conservation of open space with potential to support the glossy snake and grasshopper mouse and the payment of MSHCP development fees, impacts to the California glossy snake and Southern grasshopper mouse would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources

3. Coast Horned Lizard and Coastal Whiptail
Coast horned lizard and costal whiptail were not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support both species. However, the coast horned lizard and costal whiptail are Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support these species, impacts to coast horned lizard and costal whiptail would be less than significant.

4. Red -diamond Rattlesnake
Red -diamond rattlesnake was observed within the Project site during field efforts and has the potential to occur more extensively within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support this species. However, the rattlesnake is a Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support the rattlesnake, impacts to red -diamond rattlesnake would be less than significant.

5. Bell's Sage Sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow were observed within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow. However, both the Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow are Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support these species, impacts to Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow would be less than significant.

6. Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The coastal California gnatcatcher was not observed but has the potential to occur within the Riversidean sage scrub community within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.13 acres of habitat with the potential to support coastal California gnatcatcher. The coastal California gnatcatcher is a Covered Species and the Project's participation in the MSHCP would reduce impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher. However, Condition 5b of the USFWS MSHCP Take Permit places a seasonal restriction on the clearing of occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, stating that the clearing of occupied habitat within Public/Quasi-Public Lands and the Criteria Area is prohibited between March 1 and August 15. Therefore, there is potential for the Project to impact coastal California gnatcatcher during construction activities.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources

7. Loggerhead Shrike
Loggerhead shrike (SSC) was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral, non-native grassland, and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support loggerhead shrike, although much of that habitat would be used for foraging purposes with the potential for nesting limited to areas with shrubs and trees. The loss of habitat with the potential to support the loggerhead shrike may be a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation depending on the extent of use. These impacts are addressed through consistency with the MSHCP, as the loggerhead shrike is a Covered Species, which as a part of consistency includes the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support the shrike. As such, the Project's participation in the MSHCP would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance.

8. American Badger
The American badger was not directly observed during overall biological survey efforts. However, several burrows were detected within the Project site that clearly were produced by badgers. The badger was assumed present based on the presence of burrows. The Project would impact up to 370.83 acres of habitats (grassland, Riversidean sage scrub, and chaparral) that could be used by badgers.

Although the approximate extent of site use by badger could not accurately be determined, the likely use area would be concentrated in the transitional grassland/scrub areas at the boundary between the impact footprint and the open space, and within the open space itself. Although the badger is not a covered species under the MSHCP, the conservation lands that comprise the MSHCP Reserve include habitat suitable to support this species on a regional level. Therefore, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, including both the proposed conservation of open space with potential to support the badger and the payment of MSHCP development fees, impacts to the American badger would be less than significant.

9. Bobcat
The bobcat was confirmed present within the Project site through detection of tracks and scat, as well as using wildlife cameras. Although the bobcat does not have special status as a listed species or SSC, the bobcat is a MSHCP Covered Species and is a Planning Species for Proposed Core 3 to support movement and provide for live-in habitat. The Project would permanently impact up to 386.31 acres of habitat with the potential to support bobcat, including the support of local movement that is potentially significant. However, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands (PDF 4-1), wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects that are discussed below. With the implementation of the Project, impacts to bobcat would be less than significant.

10. Dulzura Pocket Mouse
Dulzura pocket mouse was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral, non-native grassland, and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support the pocket mouse.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Although the pocket mouse is not a covered species under the MSHCP, the conservation lands that comprise the MSHCP Reserve include habitat suitable to support this species on a regional level. As such, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, including both the proposed conservation of open space with potential to support the pocket mouse and the payment of MSHCP development fees impacts to the Dulzura pocket mouse would be less than significant.

11. Mountain Lion
The mountain lion was confirmed present within the Project site through detection of tracks and scat.

As noted above, the mountain lion is currently a State Candidate for listing under CESA and a MSHCP Covered Species. Per the MSHCP, the mountain lion is a Planning Species for Proposed Core 3 to support movement and provide for live-in habitat. The Project would permanently impact up to 386.31 acres of habitat with the potential to support the mountain lion, including the support of local movement that is potentially significant. However, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands, wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects that are discussed below. With the implementation of the Project, impacts to mountain lion would be reduced to below a level of significance.

12. Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral, non-native grassland, and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse. However, the pocket mouse is a Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support the pocket mouse, impacts to the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse would be less than significant.

13. Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR)
SKR was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the non-native grassland community within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 312.07 acres of habitat with the potential to support SKR. However, the Project site occurs within the Fee Assessment Area of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habiat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). All projects located within Fee Assessment Area are required to pay the SKR fee, which mitigates any impacts to SKR. With coverage afforded by the SKR HCP, impacts to SKR would be less than significant.

14. San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit
San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit was not observed but has the potential to occur within the non-native grassland and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit. However, the San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit is a Covered Species under the MSHCP.

Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources space with the potential to support the jackrabbit, impacts to San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit would be less than significant.

15. Burrowing Owl
As discussed above, burrowing owls were not detected on -site during focused surveys. However, the Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owls and there is a potential for burrowing owls to occupy the Project site prior to the commencement of construction activities. Therefore, impacts to burrowing owl would be potentially significant.

C. Summary of Direct Impacts
The Project is not required per the MSHCP to conduct presence/absence surveys for any of the above - referenced species, either because the species are fully covered and the MSHCP does not have any project -specific survey requirements for these species, or the species are not covered and survey requirements were not developed for the MSHCP. For the majority of these species, including the reptiles, loggerhead shrike, and small mammals, either there is no established survey protocol for the species or the extensive survey efforts to confirm the presence/absence of these species is not warranted. Since focused surveys were not performed for these species to confirm absence, or to determine the extent of site use by the one or more species if present, then the alternative is to acknowledge the possibility of occurrence based on the presence of suitable habitat. The likelihood is that certain species, if present, occupy a smaller portion of the site, and that although the loss of habitat might impact one or more species, impacts are not expected to be considered as "substantial adverse" impacts that would trigger a determination of significance. The coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, red -diamond rattlesnake, coastal California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, bobcat, mountain lion, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, SKR and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit are all MSHCP Covered Species. As such, through the participation in the MSHCP, including the payment of MSHCP development fees, impacts to these species would be less than significant. In addition, the species receive coverage under the MSHCP because lands have adequately been conserved throughout the Plan area to support coverage. Furthermore, given that adequate conservation is provided within western Riverside County for these species, the loss of habitat because of the Project would not be a substantial adverse effect to the species at the local level.

California glossy snake, American badger, Dulzura pocket mouse and southern grasshopper mouse are not designated as Covered Species under the MSHCP as sufficient information was not available to make that determination when the MSHCP was approved. Crotch bumble bee is not a Covered Species because at the time that the MSHCP was approved the bumble bee was not regarded with a level of sensitivity to warrant consideration. Regardless of whether these species have an official designation as a Covered Species, the lands collectively conserved as part of the MSHCP Reserve are certain to provide habitat for these species, and through participation of the Project in the MSHCP, including the proposed conservation of 230.82 acres of lands with potential habitat for these species, impacts to these species would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources However, the Project would result in potential impacts to crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl during construction activities. Therefore, impacts to special -status animals would be potentially significant.

D. Indirect Impacts
In the context of biological resources, indirect edge effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to adjacent native open space. The MSHCP acknowledges that in the absence of measures to address urban edge effects to open space, it is assumed that edge effects resulting from development or land use practices in proximity to conserved habitat areas include: 1) long-term presence of unshielded noise -generating land uses in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area; 2) unshielded night -lighting directed within the MSHCP Conservation Area; 3) use of exotic landscape plant materials that may invade native vegetation communities within the MSHCP Conservation Area; 4) discharge of uncontrolled or unfiltered urban runoff toward the MSHCP Conservation Area, including potential toxics; and 5) uncontrolled access, dumping or trespass within the MSHCP Conservation Area. In absence of measures to address these issues, edge effects would have the potential for significant indirect impacts to native biological resources. As such, projects located adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area are required to implement measures pursuant to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines per Volume I, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. With adherence to the guidelines, projects are expected to minimize potential edge effects such that a project will not have significant impacts to sensitive resources because of indirect edge effects. As discussed below, the Project would implement measures consistent with the MSHCP guidelines to address the following:
drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasives, barriers, and grading/land development.

1. Drainage
Projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area are expected to incorporate measures to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. This includes measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP Conservation Area.

This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.

The watershed from the proposed developed areas of the Project site flows generally to the north, off - site into 16 culverts under the SR -60 freeway. The Project would maintain the 16 existing culverts under the freeway as the ultimate discharge locations for the Project but the runoff from the proposed buildings, parking lots, and road improvements would be collected by a proposed drainage system.

The proposed drainage system would consist of catch basins, grated inlets, storm drainpipes with sizes varying from 18 to 48 inches, and four detention basins. The drainage system routes the runoff from Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources the proposed impervious surfaces to four proposed stormwater treatment and mitigation basins. Each basin provides stormwater treatment and peak flow mitigation for each of their respective tributaries to prevent the post -development flows from exceeding the pre -development flows. Basins would be maintained by the Master Property Owners' Association, through access and maintenance easements with owners of each property where basins are located. The Project's contractor would also develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for runoff and water quality during construction. Refer to EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a full discussion on the Project's drainage and water quality.

2. Toxics
Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues discussed above will be implemented.

The Project would implement a SWPPP that would address runoff during construction. In addition, following the completion of activities, runoff from any developed or paved areas (including landscaped areas) would be treated prior to draining into undeveloped areas.

3. Lighting
The Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines expect that night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species from direct night lighting. If night lighting is required during construction or as part of the development project, shielding shall be incorporated to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased, i.e., the Project cannot result in light spillage into the Conservation Area such that the baseline ambient lighting is increased.

A lighting analysis/illumination study (Technical Appendix N to this EIR) has been prepared for the Project demonstrating that the Project's night lighting would not increase light levels in the adjacent Conservation Area. As shown in Figure 3-7, the Project's Land Use Plan includes the industrial and commercial development, surrounded by the Project Maintained Open Space (PA 9), which then abuts the proposed Open Space - Conservation lands (PA 10) that would be part of the MSHCP Conservation Area. The nearest night lighting to the Conservation Area would be placed around the perimeter of the development areas such that the Project's PA 9 would serve as a buffer between the development and the Conservation Area. Furthermore, light fixtures would be down shielded and would face inwards towards the inside of the Project site, such that the light fixtures would not result in any illumination in the Conservation Area, and the ambient baseline within the Conservation Area would not increase.

4. Noise
Pursuant to the MSHCP, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The MSHCP does not speck a noise level as the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources "residential standard, " nor does the MSHCP differentiate between daytime and nighttime levels, and the standard varies depending on the Lead Agency jurisdiction. Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards.

As shown in Figure 4.13-2, Noise Receiver Locations, in Section 4.13, Noise of this EIR, a total of five receiver locations were considered in the noise analysis. In addition, receiver locations BIO-1, BIO-2 and BIO-3 represent the existing open space areas and potential sensitive receiver location for biological resources. Four of the sensitive receivers (RI through R4) are located well away from the Project site in surrounding communities and are not relevant to impacts to biological resources.

However, R5 is located immediately east of the proposed off -site conservation lands (replacement lands to support the Criteria Refinement). The following provides the locations of the four receptors for consideration of noise edge effects to wildlife:
• BIO-1 — located near the box culvert wildlife undercrossing of the SR -60, approximately 175 feet north of the Project site. BIO-1 represents the wildlife undercrossing and the proposed conservation lands south of the culvert and west of the proposed development footprint.
• BIO-2 — located between the Project site and the SR -60, approximately 184 feet northeast of the Project site. BIO-2 is located on the opposite side of the SR -60 from the existing conservation lands (Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands) associated with San Timeteo Wash.
• BIO-3 — located within existing conservation lands approximately 164 feet southwest of the Project site adjacent to additional lands proposed for conservation by the Project. • R5 — represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 13270 Jack Rabbit Trail (Hoy Ranch), approximately 92 feet south of the Project site and approximately 300 feet from the proposed off -site conservation lands. R5 is placed at the private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

Construction Noise Impacts
Construction noise levels were evaluated for construction equipment associated with grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating. The highest construction noise levels for all four receiver sites are attributed to grading, with slightly lower levels for the other construction activities.

As shown in 0,
Summary of Construction Noise Levels, Project construction would not cause noise levels at receiver locations would range from 73.4 dBA Leq to 77.7 dBA Leq. Acceptable exterior construction noise level threshold is based on the City of Beaumont 55 dBA Leq interior noise level limit and the 20 dBA noise reduction associated with typical building construction. However, this threshold is not applicable to Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources biological impacts, and instead the biological analysis must only consider the noise levels and their sources, the duration of the noise, and the time of day that the noise will occur. Construction by its very nature generates noise levels that will temporarily exceed those of ambient levels and typical project operational levels. However, construction activities will occur over a short duration, will only occur during daytime hours, with the exception of potential nighttime concrete pour activities, and noise levels will vary throughout the day depending on the equipment being used. In addition, the Project is not located in immediate proximity to riparian habitats that support sensitive riparian species such as the least Bell's vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher. Furthermore, as discussed below, the Project will incorporate mitigation measures that would avoid and minimize impacts during the breeding season, including general nesting bird surveys with temporary setback buffers from any active nests, pre -construction burrowing owl surveys with temporary setback buffers from any occupied burrows, and the avoidance of habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers from March 1 and August 15. Lastly, the aforementioned species are all designated as MSHCP Covered Species, and therefore impacts (including indirect noise impacts) are covered by the MSHCP provided that projects would comply with all applicable MSHCP requirements. Accordingly, Project construction impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

Table 4.4-7 Summary of Construction Noise Levels
Receiver
Grading
(dBA Leq)
Building
Construction
(dBA Leq)
Paving
(dBA Leq)
Architectural
Coating
(dBA Leq)
Highest Levels
(dBA Leq)
BIO-1

74.4 67.4

65.4 62.4

74.4 BIO-2

75.2 68.2

66.2 63.2

75.2 BIO-3

77.7 70.7

68.7 65.7

77.7 R5

73.4 66.4

64.4 61.4

73.4 Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 5-6)
Operational Noise Impacts
Operational noise levels (daytime and nighttime) were evaluated for loading dock activities, truck movements, roof -top air conditionings units, parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activities. As shown in Table 4.4-8, Summary of Operational Noise Levels, Project stationary noise would not expose nearby receivers to unacceptable daytime or nighttime noise levels during Project operations following Project buildout, with the exception of BIO-2 and BIO-3 during nighttime.

However, the location of the BIO-2 is between the Project site and the SR -60 with nearest open space located on the opposite side of the freeway, approximately twice the distance from the nearest operational noise sources at the BIO-2 receiver site. Similarly, the location of the BIO-3 is at the very edge of the Proposed Core 3 open space away from the interior of the Core and primary wildlife use areas and would not affect wildlife movement in Proposed Core 3 and would not result in significant impacts to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, operation noise level impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-8 Summary of Operational Noise Levels
Receiver
Location
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
BIO-1

42.2 42.2
55 45
No
No
BIO-2

46.2 46.1
55 45
No
Yes
BIO-3

52.0 52.0
55 45
No
Yes
R5

43.0 42.7
55 45
No
No
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 5-5)
Vibration and Blasting Impacts
Although not addressed by the MSHCP and not directly applicable to wildlife noise impact analyses, the Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix J to this EIR) addressed vibration levels and blasting impacts from construction. The vibration and blasting analyses were not designed to address wildlife but focused on human impacts in residential areas. However, vibration and blasting levels are all projected to be within acceptable ranges per residential standards. Construction vibration levels are estimated to range from 19.6 to 50.3 VdB and would remain below the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential uses at the five residential receiver locations. Therefore, the Project -related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.

Furthermore, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Although vibration levels were not analyzed for the BIO-1, 2 and 3 receivers, the R5 receiver provides a comparable analysis for the BIO receivers due to its proximity to the proposed open space.

Blasting, if needed, would be limited to a small ridgeline area in the southeastern portion of the Project site near the existing Jack Rabbit Trail and would be limited to a short daytime duration. The calculated airblast levels from the worst -case (closest) Project blasting activities are expected to be as high as 111 dB at nearest receiver site (R5), which would be under the 133 dB airblast threshold, and ranging from 88 to 101 dB for the other four residential receivers. Although blasting levels were not projected for the BIO receivers, their distance from the nearest blasting is comparable to the other residential receivers. Therefore, aligning with residential standards, the Project -related airblast noise level impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.

5. Invasives
Projects adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall avoid the use of invasive plant species in landscaping, including invasive, non-native plant species listed in Volume I, Table 6-2 of the MSHCP.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources

6. Barriers
Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.

As described below under threshold d, the Project would erect wildlife fencing along the southern and western limits of the development footprint, connecting with SR -60 wildlife fencing, to provide a barrier between the edge of the development footprint and the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area.

Although the fence is designed to minimize wildlife entering the Project site, it would also function to minimize unauthorized public access to the MSHCP Conservation Area.

7. Grading/Land Development
The MSHCP states that manufactured slopes associated with development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.

The Project would conduct remedial grading within the Project's PA 9 to construct manufactured slopes. However, these manufactured slopes will not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.

Threshold b: Would the Project 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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
A. Sensitive Vegetation Communities
As shown in Table 4.4-9, Summary of Vegetation Community/Land Cover Impacts, and Figure 4.4-7, Vegetation Impacts Map, the Project would result in a permanent impact to approximately 58.76 acres of native vegetation communities (Chaparral, Riversidean Sage Scrub and Southern Riparian Scrub) and 328.71 acres of non-native habitats (non-native grassland) and disturbed/developed areas. As discussed above, Southern Riparian Scrub is considered to be a sensitive community in general as a "riparian" community. However, based on state rankings, the Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral communities are not sensitive. These vegetation communities could potentially support special -status animal species. These impacts are addressed through consistency with the MSHCP, which includes the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of 230.82 acres of open space, including 80.63 acres of native vegetation communities (1.20 acres of Southern Riparian Scrub, 1.28 acres of Chaparral and 78.15 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub). Therefore, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, impacts to vegetation communities would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-9 Summary of Vegetation Community/Land Cover Impacts Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type
Total Impacts
Chaparral3

0.60 Non-native Grassland2
312.07
Riversidean Sage Scrub'

58.13 Southern Riparian Scrub',3

0.03 Disturbed

15.48 Developed

1.16 Total
387.47
1 classified as a type of riparian vegetation.
2 non-native vegetation
3 native vegetation
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 5-1)
B. Riparian Habitat
As shown in Figure 4.4-8, Corps/Regional Board Jurisdictional Delineation/Impact Map, the Project would result in a permanent impact to 0.43 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, of which 0.03 acre supports riparian habitat. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat would be potentially significant.

Threshold c: Would the Project have 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? Approximately 0.02 acre of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdictional wetlands are present within Drainage L within the Project site; however, this portion of Drainage L is located outside of the development footprint. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of state or federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur. The Project would, however, result in impacts to drainages considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW. The Project's impacts to jurisdictional waters are discussed below.

A. Impacts to Corps and Regional Board Jurisdiction
Table 4.4-10, Summary of Impacts to Potential Corps and Regional Board Jurisdiction, summarizes impacts to potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction. The Project would impact approximately

0.31 acre (5,506 linear feet) of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdictional resources but would not result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, as depicted in Figure 4.4-8. Project impacts to Corps jurisdiction would require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA from the Regional Board. Impacts to Regional Board jurisdiction Waters of the U.S. would require water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA from the Regional Board and impacts to Regional Board jurisdictional Waters of the State would require a Waste Discharge Order from the Regional Board. Therefore, impacts to Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction would be potentially significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-10 Summary of Impacts to Potential Corps and Regional Board Jurisdiction Drainage Name
Non -Wetland Waters
(acres)
Wetlands (acres)
Total (acres)
Linear Feet
Drainage B

0.12 0.00

0.12 1,008
Drainage C

0.01 0.00

0.01 381
Drainage E

0.01 0.00

0.01 7
Drainage G

0.08 0.00

0.08 1,048
Drainage I

0.03 0.00

0.03 969
Tributary I-1

0.01 0.00

0.01 533
Tributary I-2

0.01 0.00

0.01 501
Tributary I-3

0.03 0.00

0.03 954
Drainage L

0.01 0.00

0.01 105
Total

0.31 0.00

0.31 5,506
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Tables 5-2 and 5-3)
B. Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction
As summarized in Table 4.4-11, Summary of CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts, summarizes impacts to potential CDFW jurisdiction. The Project would result in impacts to 0.43 acre (5,506 linear feet) of CDFW jurisdiction, which includes 0.40 acre of non -riparian streambed and 0.03 acre of jurisdictional riparian habitat, as depicted in Figure 4.4-9, CDFW/MSHCP Jurisdictional Delineation/Impact Map.

Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would require a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to CFGC Section 1602. Therefore, impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would be potentially significant.

Table 4.4-11 Summary of CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts
Drainage Name
Non -Riparian (acres)
Riparian (acres)
Total (acres)
Linear Feet
Drainage B

0.12 0.00

0.12 1,008
Drainage C

0.03 0.00

0.03 381
Drainage E

0.01 0.00

0.01 7
Drainage G

0.12 0.00

0.12 1,048
Drainage I

0.04 0.03

0.07 969
Tributary I-1

0.01 0.00

0.01 533
Tributary I-2

0.01 0.00

0.01 501
Tributary I-3

0.05 0.00

0.05 954
Drainage L

0.01 0.00

0.01 105
Total

0.40 0.03

0.43 5,506
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Tables 5-4)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold d: 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? A. Wildlife Corridor
As discussed above, the Project site provides for the local movement of wildlife, including mountain lion, mule deer, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and other smaller mammals, as well as general habitat, including live-in habitat for some species. As such, the Project would result in impacts to the local movement of wildlife through the Project site. However, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals pertaining to movement, specifically as it relates to supporting the goals of Proposed Core 3. The supporting design elements of the Project include 1) conserving the lands required by the MSHCP to support the assembly and function of Proposed Core 3; 2) installing and maintaining fencing that would separate the development footprint (including the Project's managed open space buffer) from Proposed Core 3 conservation lands; and 3) managing edge effects between the Project and the conserved lands, including lighting and noise.

The Project would conserve 230.82 acres of lands that would support the function of Proposed Core 3 consistent with the MSHCP goals of providing live-in habitat and facilitating movement, including 152.42 acres on -site and 78.40 acres off -site. As Proposed Core 3 extends from northwest to southeast, the Core is bisected by SR -60 to the west of the Project. As such, the SR -60 provides a constraint to movement of wildlife through Proposed Core 3. MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.2 provides guidelines for the construction of wildlife crossings associated with roadway projects. The MSHCP notes undercrossing structures of varying sizes should be included in a long road alignment to accommodate small, medium, and large wildlife, with multiple undercrossings for each size group depending on the length of the roadway. Caltrans is currently constructing the SR -60 Truck Lanes Project which extends for approximately 4.75 miles from approximately Gilman Springs Road on the west to a point about one mile east of the western limits of the Project site. The Caltrans work is expected to be completed by the time that construction of the Project would begin, therefore, Project components including proposed fencing would tie in consistently with the SR -60 improvements.

As part of the SR -60 improvements, Caltrans is constructing eight all-weather undercrossing structures specifically for wildlife, including two 20 -foot -tall by 20 -foot -wide box culverts to accommodate larger wildlife (mule deer, mountain lion, and bobcat) and six smaller undercrossings. The smaller structures consist of a combination of corrugated metal pipes (CMPs), reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs) and arch concrete pipes (ACPs). Three of the eight undercrossings are being constructed for the section of the SR -60 improvements that abut the northern Project boundary, including one 60 -inch pipe at the western end of the Project site, one of the 20 -foot by 20 -foot culverts approximately 0.50 mile along the Project boundary east of the 60 -inch pipe, and one 36 -inch pipe another 0.50 mile to the east of the box culvert. Wildlife expected to occur at the Project site with the potential to use these three features include medium to large -sized mammals such as mule deer, mountain lion, bobcat and coyote, smaller mammals such as gray fox, raccoon and rodents, and other smaller wildlife such as reptiles and amphibians. The remaining five Caltrans undercrossings are being constructed west of the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Project site, with the second 20 -foot by 20 -foot culvert located approximately one -mile west of the Project site. Figure 4.4-10, Proposed SR -60 Wildlife Crossings Map, depicts the locations of all eight of the proposed undercrossings associated with the SR -60 project.

Conservation proposed by the Project includes the northwestern corner of Cell 933, which based on the existing Cell Criteria is not described for conservation. The northwestern portion of Cell 933 is located adjacent to the Caltrans box culvert and based on the existing Cell Criteria the box culvert might not be properly connected to the Proposed Core 3 open space. As such, one benefit of the Criteria Refinement is to place this portion of the Cell into conservation such that undercrossing is properly connected to the main portion of the Proposed Core 3 to the southwest.

The SR -60 improvements include a wildlife fence along both the northern and southern edges of the SR -60 to minimize wildlife from entering the roadway and direct wildlife to the areas north and south of the freeway. As shown in Figure 4.4-11, Proposed Fencing and SR -60 Crossings Map, the eastern terminus of the SR -60 fence is being constructed just east of the proposed 36 -inch pipe culvert. The proposed Project would similarly construct a wildlife fence along the western and southern edges of the Project site to prevent wildlife from entering the site from the adjacent conserved lands. The fence would be constructed approximately along the boundary between the proposed conserved lands (PA 10) and the Project's PA 9, although the exact location would vary depending on the topography. The Project's fence would tie into the SR -60 fence at the easternmost proposed wildlife CMP and would extend west and then south/southeast around the Project to direct wildlife in the northwesterly/southeasterly direction. The wildlife fencing along the Project boundary would include one-way swing gates opening into the MSHCP conservation area for any wildlife that enter the Project site from the north and east trying to escape into the adjacent conserved lands. In addition to the wildlife fence, the Project would also include six-foot tubular steel security fencing along the northern boundary abutting the SR -60 Right of way, beginning from the wildlife fence on the west and extending east to the Project's entry point. Wildlife that either cross over or under the SR -60 east of the Caltrans wildlife fence terminus would be forced to the west or east along the security fence. A swing gate would be installed to the west along the section of lateral (north -south) wildlife fence connecting to the SR -60 fence, allowing wildlife to escape the freeway right-of-way towards the conserved lands.

As further discussed above under threshold a, the Project through its design would also address edge effects relative to adjacent conserved lands. The Project's night lighting would be designed to prevent spillage into the MSHCP conserved lands along the western and southern development boundary. As such, consistent with the MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Volume I, Section

6.1.4) night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. Regarding noise, the Project's Maintained Open Space (i.e., PA 9) would serve as a buffer between the main development footprint and the proposed conservation lands, such that wildlife within the adjacent conserved lands would not be subjected to noise that exceeds residential standards.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources In conclusion, although the Project would result in impacts to lands that support the local movement of wildlife, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands, wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects. Through compliance with MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3, impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant.

B. Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
The Project site does not represent a nursery site. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to a native wildlife nursery site. However, the Project site contains vegetation with the potential to support native nesting birds. Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and CFGC. Since the Project has the potential to impact active nests regulated by the MBTA and CFGC, Project impacts to nesting birds represents a significant impact of the Project for which mitigation in the form of pre -construction surveys and avoidance of active nests would be required.

Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? As discussed in EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources. The City of Beaumont does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Threshold f 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?
The Project site is located in the MSHCP Criteria Area, within portions of independent Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125, as well as a portion of Cell Group A', divided between two Area Plans: The Pass Area Plan (Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125) and the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (Cell Group A'). The Project is subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process in coordination with the City of Beaumont. The Project will be subject to Joint Project Review (JPR) by the RCA in order for the RCA to determine that the Project will be consistent with the MSHCP. The Project's compliance with MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements, 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), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), is provided below.
• Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2): The Project site supports 1.18 acres of riparian habitat and 2.57 acre of riverine streambed. Although riparian habitat is present within the Project site in the form of Southern Riparian Scrub, this community does not have the potential to support least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow -billed cuckoo. Within the Project site, this community is comprised of individual trees and shrubs with an herbaceous Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources understory, and does not contain a stratified canopy or support the structural complexity required to support these species.

The Project site does not contain any depressions (natural or artificial) that would inundate long enough to support resources associated with vernal pools, including fairy shrimp. The soils mapped within the Project site are categorized as sandy loam soils, which are generally not associated with vernal pools, and direct observations of the soils within the Project site showed a lack of clay soil components. Road ruts are generally not allowed to develop or persist for durations long enough to support resources associated with pools due to regular maintenance of the access roads within the Project site. Regular maintenance keeps these roads free of ruts and washouts, in order to allow operations and maintenance of various utilities (i.e., Southern California Edison transmission towers and a SoCa1 Gas transmission pipeline), as well as access to commercial apiary operations. In addition, no plant species were observed within the Project site that are associated with vernal pools and similar habitats that experience prolonged inundation.

The Project would result in impacts to 0.03 acre of riparian habitat and 0.40 acre of riverine streambed. Therefore, a Demonstration of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would be required for impacts to Riparian/Riverine resources. A DBESP would be completed as part of the Project. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP.
• Protection of Narrow Endemic Plants (Section 6.1.3): Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site -specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present.

No special -status plant species were observed within the Project site during focused plant surveys. The Project site occurs within NEPSSA 8; therefore, the following target species were evaluated: many -stemmed dudleya and Yucaipa onion. As discussed above, these species are not expected to occur due to a lack of suitable (clay) soils and were not detected during focused surveys. Therefore, these species were confirmed to be absent from the Project site and the Project would not result in impacts to NEPSSA species; therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
• Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4): The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. As the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, development is expected to occur adjacent to the Conservation Area. Future development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in edge effects with the potential to adversely affect biological resources within the Conservation Area. To minimize such edge effects, the guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. As discussed in threshold a, the Project will Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources implement applicable measures as it relates to temporary construction impacts to minimize adverse indirect impacts on special -status resources within Conserved Lands. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. • Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (Section 6.3.2): The Project site is not located within a CAPSSA, Mammal Survey Area, or Amphibian Survey Area, and does not support suitable habitat for riparian/riverine associated species (i.e. listed fairy shrimp, least Bell's vireo); therefore, surveys for these species were not required and impacts would not result from the Project.

The Project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area. Focused surveys were conducted during the 2019 burrowing owl breeding season, with negative results.

Regardless, at a minimum, a 30 -day preconstruction survey will be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. If burrowing owls are detected on - site during the 30 -day preconstruction survey, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed for the passive/active translocation of individuals as directed by the RCA and wildlife agencies. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2, the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

As outlined above, the Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements, 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), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4- 2 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

4.4.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project site. The cumulative impact evaluation also takes into consideration the geographic area covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which is the prevailing habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project site.

The temporary direct and/or indirect impacts of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to environmental resources within the region of the Project site. Cumulative impacts refer to incremental effects of an individual project when assessed with the effects of past, current, and proposed projects. The MSHCP was developed to address the comprehensive regional planning effort and anticipated growth in the City of Beaumont. The Project would result in permanent impacts to vegetation communities described for conservation by the MSHCP associated with Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 totaling 109.69 acres and would impact the following communities: chaparral Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources (0.21 acre), Riversidean sage scrub (24.40 acres), non-native grassland (82.13 acres), and southern riparian scrub (0.03 acre). To offset these impacts, the Project would conserve 133.62 acres of replacement lands, including 0.32 acre of chaparral, 45.85 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, 86.03 acres of non-native grassland, and 0.22 acre of southern riparian scrub consistent with the MSHCP.

Additionally, the Project would potentially impact MSHCP covered species (coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, red -diamond rattlesnake, coastal California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, bobcat, mountain lion, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, SKR and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit).

Impacts to covered species would be mitigated through a combination of general MSHCP compliance, pre -construction surveys, protection plans and avoidance, as required (Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1, MM 4.4-2, MM 4.4-3, and MM 4.4-5). Non -covered sensitive floral species were not detected or expected to occur within or adjacent to the Project and therefore the development of the Project site would not result or contribute to a cumulative impact to non -covered species. A few non -covered sensitive faunal species have potential to occur within the Project site, and so the Project could contribute to a cumulative impact for these species. However, adequate lands would be conserved by the Project as part of the MSHCP conservation to address these species and reduce any impacts to below a level of significance. Furthermore, the Project has been designed and mitigated to remain in compliance with all MSHCP conservation goals and guidelines and therefore would not result in an adverse cumulative impact.

The Project would also impact jurisdictional waters (0.31 acres of Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction, and 0.43 acres of CDFW jurisdiction and MSHCP riparian/riverine resources, of which

0.03 acre is vegetated riparian habitat). Through the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4- 4, the Project would be required to purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio.

The proposed Project would impact local movement routes for wildlife but would conserve lands contributing to the assembly of the adjacent Proposed Core 3 and would therefore support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3, including the movement of wildlife through Proposed Core 3. As such, the Project would not result or contribute to a cumulative impact to wildlife movement or corridors.

4.4.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Significant Direct Impact. No special -status plants were detected at the Project site during focused plant surveys; therefore, no impact to special -status plants would occur. The Project would result in potential impacts to crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl during construction activities. Therefore, impacts to special -status animals would be potentially significant.

Threshold b: Significant Direct Impact. The Project would result in a permanent impact to 0.43 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, of which 0.03 acre supports riparian habitat. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat would be potentially significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Threshold c: Significant Direct Impact. The Project site does not contain any State- or federally - protected wetlands, and therefore the Project would not impact wetlands. However, the Project would result in impacts to 0.31 acre (5,506 linear feet) of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdictional resources and 0.43 acre (5,506 linear feet) of CDFW jurisdiction. Project impacts to waters considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW represent a significant impact of the proposed Project.

Threshold d: Significant Direct Impact. Although the Project would result in impacts to lands that support the local movement of wildlife, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands, wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects. Through compliance with MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3, impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant. However, the Project has the potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, should habitat removal occur during the nesting season and should nesting birds be present. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant.

Threshold e: No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Threshold f: Significant Direct and Cumulatively -Considerable Impact. The Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements, 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), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

4.4.10 MITIGATION
MM 4.4-1
MM 4.4-2
Prior to initial ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction presence/absence survey for crotch bumble bee prior to site disturbance. If the bumble bee were to be detected (or assumed present) within the development footprint, then the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to address the extent of impacts and determine whether an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) would be required. If an ITP were required, then mitigation may be required by CDFW as part of the ITP process, and the conservation of the comparable open space habitat within PA 10 would be presented to support the ITP.

Prior to initial ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources within 30 days to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground -disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform and coordinate with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) to prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan (if required), prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground -disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre -construction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary. The Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, if necessary, will describe methods to safely relocate burrowing owls from the Project site (if avoidance were infeasible) and to monitor burrowing owls with an adequate setback buffer if construction would proceed at the site until the owls could be relocated.

MM 4.4-3
MM 4.4-4
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or other permits allowing for ground -disturbing activities or the removal of vegetation on -site, the City of Beaumont Department of Public Works shall ensure that the following note is included on the grading plans.

Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with this note and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Beaumont staff or its designee to confirm compliance. This note also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors.

Ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) within the Criteria Area (Criteria Cells) shall be conducted outside of the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (between March 1 and August 15) if occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher. If ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) cannot be limited to outside the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction presence/absence survey for coastal California gnatcatcher within 14 days prior to site disturbance. If the species is found, the Project proponent shall immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) and ground disturbing activities within these areas will be postponed to outside of the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season. If the species is not found, no further action is needed.

Prior to issuance of grading permits or other permits authorizing ground disturbance (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging), the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Beaumont that impacts to 0.31 acre of Corps jurisdiction and Regional Board jurisdiction, and 0.43 acre of CDFW jurisdiction and MSHCP riparian/riverine resources (including 0.03 acre of riparian habitat) have been mitigated through either the purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Approved Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources mitigation banks and/or in -lieu fee programs include, but are not limited to, the Riverpark Mitigation Bank, the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District In -Lieu Fee Program, and the Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District In -Lieu Fee Program. In addition, and also prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Beaumont of a copy of the Project's CWA Section 404 permit from the Corps, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Board, Waste Discharge Order from the Regional Board, and Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW, as applicable.

MM 4.4-5
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or other permits allowing for ground -disturbing activities or the removal of vegetation on -site, the City of Beaumont Department of Public Works shall ensure that the following note is included on the grading plans.

Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with this note and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Beaumont staff or its designee to confirm compliance. This note also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors.

As feasible, vegetation clearing shall be conducted outside of the nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall 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, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

4.4.11 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 would ensure that appropriate preconstruction surveys are conducted prior to ground -disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal for bumble bees and an ITP be obtained, as necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 would ensure that appropriate preconstruction surveys are conducted prior to ground -disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal, and would ensure that owls are relocated following the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, if necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-3 would ensure that appropriate pre - construction surveys are conducted if ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) within the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season. Implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce Project impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, including the crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl, to less - than -significant levels.

Threshold b: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4 would ensure that Project impacts to 0.43 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources resources (including 0.03 acre of riparian habitat) are mitigated through either the purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project's impacts to riparian habitat to less -than -significant levels.

Threshold c: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4 would ensure that Project impacts to 0.31 acre of Corps jurisdiction and Regional Board jurisdiction, and 0.43 acre of CDFW jurisdiction are mitigated through either the purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The required mitigation also would ensure that the Project Applicant obtains appropriate permits from the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW.

Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project's impacts to jurisdictional waters to less -than -significant levels.

Threshold d: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-5 would ensure that appropriate pre -construction surveys are conducted during the bird nesting season and would ensure that impacts to any active nests are avoided. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project's potential impacts to nesting birds to less -than - significant levels
Threshold f: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl. Implementation of the required mitigation would ensure the Project's consistency with the MSHCP.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
.n
1,
r
f
1 t �. �.
•
>.
• Study
``--_
--
-
•
- -
Area
' a
� N
■�
. � ,..
--.
r
Project Site
.,
�
i
•
• .,,,,.

Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
•=
-
�"`
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
t `rah
�►
•'.
`
.'� .
_
J
r"u
•
�, •
�.� Y. ��
,,.■a.
. �.

Chaparral
= .•
,,�
T
��
I'
z
•. " _ !"�!
- Riversidean Sage Scrub
�.
i
\
> %
Disturbed
'/�—

Jack Rabbit Trail Road
Y1t
'
■
r
.

f

�� l ..

Non Native Grassland
.

Southern Riparian Scrub
-,
�
.

N..

A
.
..
�`�
.
a
/' v_
�i"
1 all
II
-, v
lam'
,:r
--
-.�
-
—..�j}
a
.*4711.4:-
.._
bing
•1:010 .
lo-ta **a-
/
.

Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (06-01-2021)
Figure 4.4-1
Vegetation Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (06-01-2021)
Figure 4.4-2
MSHCP Overlay Survey Area Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Cry
,.� 4. s—� c 936 . t2- `v. 937.

^^ -*/ i ^.•` �.y , .` `
it
Study Area
0 ►.. ,.y , �=
.�� �y
Project Site
..r.r ice,., � y► illik, , ih. rM..�
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
,,�• ,wa'� ,_ _ '�
is '+�3 ' - • , �. ti ' -��
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
r'�` _
; .4•4P- r��r . F ��o- �.� _ _et ��
‘411111J
_�
y """�p .. • f

..

Cell Group A'
"' ',•,_"--,,,,* g���� .,� .\ �� `� , "�`t ..r " l .,
�s
Criteria Cells
;' ,, _�'. / f
;
�,:�
`4444e....._,
�� 4:"..%:'',.77':, 7., (
� . �`e ���• „rI ,,, `. v
fit` • ..v• �`• e1 c �i�1-�y ,� .

///
MSHCP Conserved Lands
► �,,,� yam,=_ ,� ..4.41•••••• �
i -"--���� ��\`'� �i �. r " '. � '`� �' �`1"02'4x,
���
PQP Conserved Lands
�. . ;.
"� a `^`o 4*- `.• �...• .mot . Oh
ems. 4 1'.1►� t.

Y 1y1 ,:
�`' r? of .. a t l� \,,,,,
•
I l 6 y—` 4f- . �
i �S _ ~ ;' 1124
qs i
.r ��
tit" - -
1 �('J ,
•' _, . �^ " .fit` _ it
•
r r Vie' -:

L.
y .
: .. tt• ♦ •
/ !`�
--es,
"
�If 112'
f>�;
`s
1��
j'
),,,[40.00„. ir,:„..

�°'' '
i �i� r y4;'Ao
_ / [
i • 7:----• ... 1
� 25 44 , •
1125 r+' . ".
_ 4
ap .
' •
_,
e
. �.
a
.
. ,
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (04-29-2022)
Figure 4.4-3
MSHCP Overlay Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
L-4'
L-5
CORE -11
L-6
L-12
.. _ _

iieaumont
•,`'"4

u - - -
`___
by
` CL -23
CL -22 - Existing
Project Site
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
Existing/Planned Developments
Proposed Core 3 (Approximate)
Core
Linkage
Non -Contiguous Habitat Block
\ . Constrained Linkage
1 ► General Direction of Wildlife Movement
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-4
Proposed Core 3 Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
_ Y

1. -
V7
w
_i�r
r
, 4114
- -
_-__ -.-.2.-
. •"
Study Area
h`" •.- ,
y
/€•. , .�„�; ; -
� Project Site
1? -4.
_
± �� �.� �,r1���� •t�'� 1 ,�.

Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
*' ice
,1* •.
r
�,,,
,,
:.
'�M` ...�
. ,j..•• • _; y
�' •
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
_
'r �" r 'n ,+''
,rr i, ..
r'•
Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S./State
-
.f.,
-j
r ,.

2. �"
Y
�,'y�r�
�,
' �F1 CK �. �{r` .»
1 ,,\ b y �.

Wetland Waters of the U-S./State
/ •
R
'"t
`'�
{
'19 \`? �/ 1 .: '�' .� +rMa " P�:,
0' z� e • • !� �' M
'
..+
�`5�`"�
No Stream Course
2 Width of Jurisdiction in Feet
t '"'
A ‘....21‘
`• ^
Sr
i ►- \ �
Drainage E Drainage,
4 S 3 Tributary' 4 �`
�! ._. Drainage F _ T ry 1-2 s +
•• ,
�
r . '
,� St ':
`�
.. g Drainage �✓
•iii. . Tribu ry / — H .._3 ., "sr
a. 1 — 2 Drainatgel �a \ Tnb t{iy 1- .� +
�
+rte
"� ' —,
_`ate � .•
-
*"
D ry e K

"-.
.41',4
" ;
> Tributary ‘N �r
•Si•�
•. 1 /
M. /

/gyp �;yr
''�, �� ''"� •t .

*40
y�eq` . .#4`-'`
•
Ya ::. i, butary K.21
~ Drainage L �/�
, ►, - �" ,'- tP 1,;.' / - -

:
"4.. �'
_c.. + ,�o .-'` r '- r \ ' Tributary M-1
�_. a
err
rer..--
- yr'` d S\ ' Drainage M
;;,
.I
.r •i y
; 00
�
'°W.., c
,.
+�
-"Al* , Vii; '\. <•.�� '' Tributary N-1 / b. '
a % �t4, •4 '' Drainage. \ 'but
,'- - �'6-,E.rA•� .. - - _Tributary O-1 • \ r
° pt' • 3 'Tributary P-2
.e sJ ` !� Drainage P
�' r ,"^� %r
,
_ F
.. .
'14 • 'tai �s \ N
.r
4Ao f ' ' - * . •Yi t r Tributary ' --, 4
w
r RP -3 ca:-
}s4
:. i 0? Drainage CA M1f1i►.
` ''
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (05-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-5
Corps/RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Study Area
•—
_
bing
,
=
r
=
.T
.
•
•
Y
-
-
+
•
�',
N !
=ti
_
w
r - w ,
:inageC
P
r rainage D
'� �-outage E
I
_ i
igl t
.r
a
`. .. �.e.-
a�a
•� �"'
'
I3 ;
' 1 '.
'4,
i '
'' prainag 5G ., . 1 �;' f.
i > .5 T utary l-1' j.. '''�
; ii .. ,. $1 bUtary l-2 f r.�
2 Drainage! • Tributary 1.3
_ \ 3 , Drainage J (
r rain i ` a \ Tributary
5 \ 1 K-1
' , — .v.,Drainage K ,
y tTributary !" ' .,,,v„ Drainage L
r - . ,.� .,,,v„\4-/ Tributary M-1
v
-4 S \ Drainage M
\ , \
1 I °j 5 \ _ I. Drainage N
Tributary N-1 / 1 -1.1
/ 3
Drainage O a , 't 7 ltib t
Tributary 0-1, \ i 'r
• '5-- rTribdta
DCairtage P ,j , <.' ,
r Tributary \ r
I P-3 d
r
•
r , \ Drainage Q
\
r , .
,
���-
• '
- .�.
,-
• '
�` '"
\ ,
, `4
. Froh taye Road
Project Site
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
f
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
CDFW Non -Riparian Stream
CDFW Riparian
No Stream Course
Width of Jurisdiction in Feet
J r
■
r
r
1 �*
- -

• r _.__ _r
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (06-01-2021)
Figure 4.4-6
CDFW/MSHCP Jurisdictional Delineation Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Study Area
Project Site
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
Project Footprint
Chaparral
Riversidean Sage Scrub
Disturbed
Jack Rabbit Trail Road
Non -Native Grassland
Southern Riparian Scrub
Source(s): Glenn Lukas Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-7
Vegetation Impacts Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
3 Tributary I-1 � � ♦ ♦♦°� ": • ' y
Drainage F 1 .. ", \ Tributary 1-2 '�♦♦♦�° ♦�••ij'�°o
/ s 5 Drainage / vv♦ ♦ •♦�9 O
Tributary /— H / \� ♦.04$4N • ♦♦ • •♦
may= rI
°N. ■ 2 ..% 1 'orb�? r' . ♦e a ♦,♦, ��•♦�� i•� ♦• ♦/
} A r 5 " e 2 Drainage 1 \ 7 Tribu ary l 3 �%�i�♦°4mi•
• t Draana eJ' 's.♦♦°♦��Pi
{ 3 / 3 a \`� Tributary osa o!♦`
fdilki
' ir ■ Tributa : — 2 ,/ Drainage K
/� ry
illi
pa■9i, ,r: �A 01'
�}s Tributary K-2, Drainage L
mss; --1= - i' ` /
✓ j
' ♦ ' , ' ■ v Tributary M-1<
1 p
: Tributary N-1 /
F. r h. % v i r i
Drainage O r/ \ lPi P-1
-Tributary O-1 r \ / /.
■ 9/ Tributary P-2
-scar
r DC\inagN P 9/ '
♦� Tributary r■'L ■ 3'
• P3
Study Area
Project Site
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
Project Footprint
IT Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S./State
Wetland Waters of the U.S./State
No Stream Course
2 Width of Jurisdiction in Feet
Source(s): Glenn Lukas Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-8
Corps/Regional Board Jurisdictional Delineation/Impact Map Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Drainage

1.44/S7 5
Study Area
Project Site
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
Project Footprint
CDFW Non -Riparian Stream
CDFW Riparian
No Stream Course
Width of Jurisdiction in Feet
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-9
CDFW/MSHCP Jurisdictional Delineation/Impact Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
bing
\+�.I�
iii• ����'�
.f 9
rFe �
!

_
_. •
.
4 ,,

"' r
'4
— —_`�
ems='

�.
—
,. �•
Project Site
Proposed Conservation - Offsite
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
1 VZ� 60 Freeway
Existing/Planned Developments
Proposed Core 3 (Approximate)
CalTrans 20'x20' Culvert
CalTrans Arch Concrete Pipe (ACP)
CalTrans Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)
9 • CalTrans Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)
''
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-10
Proposed SR -60 Wildlife Crossings Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Project Site
-7 Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
Proposed Conservation - Offsite
Onsite Conservation
Project Maintained Open Space
Industrial
General Commercial
Proposed Wildlife Crossings (CalTrans)
o CalTrans 20'x20' Culvert
O CalTrans Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)
• CalTrans Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)
Proposed Fencing
SR -60 Wildlife Fence
Beaumont Pointe Wildlife Fence
Beaumont Pointe Security Fence
Fl Wildlife Gate
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-1 1
Proposed Fencing and SR -60 Crossings Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources
•

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this section is based, primarily, on the cultural resources assessment report prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (hereafter, "BFSA"). The referenced BFSA report is titled "A Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project," dated October 5, 2022 (BFSA, 2022), and is included as Technical Appendix D to this EIR. Refer also to Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR, for additional information on the ethnohistoric setting and tribal cultural resources. Additional references used for this section are listed in Section

7.0, References.

Confidential information has been redacted from Technical Appendix D for purposes of public review.

In addition, much of the written and oral communication between Native American tribes, the City of Beaumont, and BFSA is considered confidential in respect to places that may have traditional tribal cultural significance (Government Code Section 65352.4), and although relied upon in part to inform the preparation of this EIR section, those communications are treated as confidential and are not available for public review. Under existing law, environmental documents must not include information about the location of archeological sites or sacred lands or any other information that is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Code of Regulations Section 15120(d)).

4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Cultural Setting

1. Prehistory
The Project site is located within the inland southern California region in Riverside County. The Paleo Indian Period, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and Late Prehistoric Takic groups are the three (3) general cultural periods represented in Riverside County. The following discussion of the cultural setting of Riverside County references the Encinitas Tradition, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, and Pauma Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component present in the Riverside County area was represented by the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Luisefio Indians. These cultural periods are summarized briefly below. Refer to Technical Appendix D for a more detailed discussion about the prehistoric cultural periods in the Riverside County.
o Paleo Indian Period (ca. 11,500-9,000 years before present ("Y.B.P."): The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 Y.B.P.).

The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands. However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused the glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes. The coastal shoreline at 10,000 Y.B.P., depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30 -meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals. o Archaic Period (ca. 9,000-1,300 Y.B.P.): Between 9,000 and 8,000 Y.B.P., a widespread complex was established in the southern California region, primarily along the coast. This complex is locally known as the La Jolla Complex, which is regionally associated with the Encinitas Tradition and shares cultural components with the widespread Milling Stone Horizon. The coastal expression of this complex appeared in the southern California coastal areas and focused upon coastal resources and the development of deeply stratified shell middens that were primarily located around bays and lagoons. The older sites associated with this expression are located at Topanga Canyon, Newport Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and some of the Channel Islands. Radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this complex span a period of over 7,000 years in this region, beginning over 9,000 Y.B.P.

The coastal lagoons in southern California supported large Milling Stone Horizon populations circa 6,000 Y.B.P., as is shown by numerous radiocarbon dates from the many sites adjacent to the lagoons. The ensuing millennia were not stable environmentally, and by 3,000 Y.B.P., many of the coastal sites in central San Diego County had been abandoned. The abandonment of the area is usually attributed to the sedimentation of coastal lagoons and the resulting deterioration of fish and mollusk habitat, which is a well - documented situation at Batiquitos Lagoon. Over a two -thousand -year period at Batiquitos Lagoon, dominant mollusk species occurring in archaeological middens shift from deep - water mollusks (Argopecten sp.) to species tolerant of tidal flat conditions (Chione sp.), indicating water depth and temperature changes.

By 5,000 Y.B.P., an inland expression of the La Jolla Complex is evident in the archaeological record, exhibiting influences from the Campbell Tradition from the north.

These inland Milling Stone Horizon sites have been termed "Pauma Complex." By definition, Pauma Complex sites share a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack mollusk remains, have greater tool variety (including Atlatl dart points, quarry -based tools, and crescentics), and seem to express a more sedentary lifestyle with a subsistence economy based upon the use of a broad variety of terrestrial resources.

Although originally viewed as a separate culture from the coastal La Jolla Complex (True 1980), it appears that these inland sites may be part of a subsistence and settlement system utilized by the coastal peoples. Evidence from inland San Diego County suggests that these inland sites may represent seasonal components within an annual subsistence round by La Jolla Complex populations. Therefore, both coastal and inland sites of this time period provide a more complete appraisal of the Encinitas Tradition settlement and subsistence system exhibited by this cultural complex.

More recent work has identified a more localized complex known as the Greven Knoll Complex. The Greven Knoll Complex is a redefined northern inland expression of the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources
•
Encinitas Tradition. All expressions of the inland Milling Stone in southern California north of San Diego County are grouped together in the Greven Knoll Complex. The Greven Knoll Complex, is broken into three phases and obtained its name from the type -site Greven Knoll located in Yucaipa, California. Excavations at Greven Knoll recovered manos, metates, projectile points, discoidal cogged stones, and a flexed inhumation with a possible cremation. It is believed that the Greven Knoll Site was occupied between 5,000 and 3,500 Y.B.P.

The shifts in food processing technologies during each phase of the Greven Knoll Complex indicate a change in subsistence strategies; although people were still hunting for large game, plant -based foods eventually became the primary dietary resource. It is thought that the development of mortars and pestles during the middle Holocene can be attributed to the year-round exploitation of acorns as a main dietary provision. Additionally, the warmer and drier climate may have been responsible for groups from the east moving toward coastal populations, which is archaeologically represented by the interchange of coastal and eastern cultural traits.
o Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1,300 Y.B.P.-1790): Many Luiseno hold the world view that as a population they were created in southern California; however, archaeological and anthropological data proposes a scientific perspective. Archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that at approximately 1,350 Y.B.P., Takic-speaking groups from the Great Basin region moved into Riverside County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. An analysis of the Takic expansion indicates that inland southern California was occupied by "proto-Yuman" populations before 1,000 Y.B.P. It is believed that Takic expansion occurred starting around 3,500 Y.B.P. moving toward southern California, with the Gabrielino language diffusing south into neighboring Yuman (Hokan) groups around 1,500 to 1,000 Y.B.P., possibly resulting in the Luiseno dialect.

The final Takic expansion would not have occurred until about 1,000 Y.B.P., resulting in Vanyume, Serrano, Cahuilla, and Cupefio dialects. It is thought that the Luisefio did not simply replace Hokan speakers, but were rather a northern San Diego County/southern Riverside County Yuman population who adopted the Takic language. This period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell -bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations.

Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far-reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
o Ethnohistorical Period (1769 to Present): Ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence indicates that three Takic-speaking groups occupied portions of Riverside County: the Cahuilla, the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources Gabrielino, and the Luiseno. The geographic boundaries between these groups in pre- and proto-historic times are difficult to place, but the Project site is located well within the borders of ethnographic Luisefio territory. This group was a seasonal hunting and gathering people with cultural elements that were very distinct from Archaic Period peoples. These distinctions include cremation of the dead, the use of the bow and arrow, and exploitation of the acorn as a main food staple. Along the coast, the Luisefio made use of available marine resources by fishing and collecting mollusks for food. Seasonally available terrestrial resources, including acorns and game, were also sources of nourishment for Luiseno groups. Elaborate kinship and clan systems between the Luisefio and other groups facilitated a wide -reaching trade network that included trade of Obsidian Butte obsidian and other resources from the eastern deserts, as well as steatite from the Channel Islands.

The primary settlements of Late Prehistoric Luisefio Indians in the San Jacinto Plain were represented by Ivah and Soboba near Soboba Springs, Jusipah near the town of San Jacinto, Ararah in Webster's Canyon en route to Idyllwild, Pahsitha near Big Springs Ranch southeast of Hemet, and Corova in Castillo Canyon. These locations share features such as the availability of food and water resources. Features of this land use include petroglyphs and pictographs, as well as widespread milling, which is evident in bedrock and portable implements. Groups in the vicinity of the Project, neighboring the Luiseno, include the Cahuilla and the Gabrielino. Please refer to Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Technical Appendix D for additional ethnographic information associated with these groups (BFSA, 2022).

2. Project Site Conditions
BFSA also performed an archaeological records search through the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at University of California at Riverside (UCR). The records search provided information regarding previous archaeological studies in the Project area and any previously recorded sites within a one -mile radius of the Project site. The EIC also provided the standard review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory. Land patent records, held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and accessible through the BLM General Land Office (GLO) website, were also reviewed for pertinent project information. In addition, the BFSA research library was consulted for any relevant historical information. The record search results indicate that 19 cultural resource locations have been recorded within a one -mile radius, six (6) of which are located within the Project site, as follows:
o RIV-5060 (historic trash scatter),
o RIV-5061 (historic trash scatter),
o P-33-006229 (historic Jack Rabbit Trail Road alignment), o P-33-009027 (prehistoric isolate),
o P-33-015672 (potentially historic water storage tank and valves), and o P-33-015673 (concrete pads and trash scatter).

Additionally, BFSA conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project site on April 16, 17, and 18, 2019. The pedestrian survey consisted of a series of parallel transects, spaced at approximately 15 - Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources meter intervals, except where the steep slopes and dense vegetation prohibited systematic transects.

Ground visibility throughout the Project site was generally poor due to heavy vegetation found throughout the property. Rodent spoil piles and patches of turned soil were closely inspected for evidence of subsurface archaeological materials. All previously recorded resources, except for prehistoric isolate P-33-009027, were located again during the pedestrian survey, and no new resources were identified (BFSA, 2022).

The historic resources within one mile of the Project site that were identified during the EIC records search consist of three refuse scatters, a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad, one flood control structure, the Haskell Ranch complex, two foundations with associated trash scatters, one Cold War testing facility, a segment of the historic Jack Rabbit Trail, a segment of the historic San Timoteo Road, a potentially historic water storage tank and valves, and three historic isolates. As stated above, six resources were identified within the Project site (BFSA, 2022).

In order to adequately evaluate and assess project impacts for the resources relocated within the Project site, Phase II significance testing and archival research were recommended and implemented for the potentially historic resources identified as within the Project site. The Phase II study consisted of archaeological testing at the two archaeological sites, RIV-5060 and RIV-5061 on June 6, 2019, while survey information and the archival data was utilized for the remaining resources. The potentially historic resources identified as within the Project site have been evaluated by BFSA as part of this Phase I and Phase II study.

8. History

1. Regional Setting
The general historical setting for the southern California region and the City of Beaumont is summarized below. Refer to Technical Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of the local historic setting.

The historic background of the Project site began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region. In the late eighteenth century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions began colonizing southern California and gradually expanded their use of the interior valley (into what is now western Riverside County) for raising grain and cattle to support the missions.

The San Gabriel Mission claimed lands in what is now Jurupa, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass, while the San Luis Rey Mission claimed land in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta. The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions. Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources
•
In the mid- to late 1770s, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through much of Riverside County while searching for an overland route from Sonora, Mexico to San Gabriel and Los Angeles, describing fertile valleys, lakes, and sub -desert areas. In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen, Father Norberto de Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde led an expedition from Mission San Juan Capistrano through southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site before constructing Mission San Luis Rey in northern San Diego County. While no missions were ever built in what would become Riverside County, many mission outposts, or asistencias, were established in the early years of the nineteenth century to extend the missions' influence to the backcountry.

Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying the end of the Mission Period. By this time, the missions owned some of the best and most fertile land in southern California. For California to develop, the land would have to be made productive enough to turn a profit. The new government began distributing the vast mission holdings to wealthy and politically connected Mexican citizens. The "grants" were called "ranchos," of which Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo were in present-day Riverside County. Many of these ranchos have lent their names to modern-day locales. The first grant in present-day Riverside County, Rancho Jurupa, was given to Juan Bandini in 1838. These ranchos were all located in the valley environments typical of western Riverside County.

The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced from their land or put to work on the now privately -owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers.

In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. In 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the region was annexed as a territory of the United States, leading to California statehood in 1850. These events generated a steady flow of settlers into the area, including gold miners, entrepreneurs, health -seekers, speculators, politicians, adventurers, seekers of religious freedom, and individuals desiring to create utopian colonies.

In early 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County, including the Luisefo and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified the treaties, and the promise of one large reservation was rescinded.

With the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, land speculators, developers, and colonists began to invest in southern California. The first colony in what was to become Riverside County was Riverside itself. Judge John Wesley North, an abolitionist from Tennessee, brought a group of associates and co -investors to southern California and founded Riverside on part of the Jurupa Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources Rancho. A few years after, the navel orange was planted and was found to be such a success that it quickly became the agricultural staple of the region.

By the late 1880s and early 1890s, there was growing discontent between Riverside and San Bernardino, its neighbor 10 miles to the north, due to differences in opinion concerning religion, morality, the Civil War, politics, and fierce competition to attract settlers. After a series of instances in which charges were claimed about unfair use of tax monies to the benefit of the city of only San Bernardino, several people from Riverside decided to investigate the possibility of a new county. In May 1893, voters living within portions of San Bernardino County (to the north) and San Diego County (to the south) approved the formation of Riverside County. Early business opportunities were linked to the agriculture industry, but commerce, construction, manufacturing, transportation, and tourism also provided a healthy local economy. By the time of Riverside County's formation, Riverside had grown to become the wealthiest city per capita in the country due to the successful cultivation of the navel orange.

With the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location of the National Veteran's Cemetery.

In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s, Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents.

The Project site is located within an area of Riverside County historically known as the Badlands. The Badlands are described as natural landscapes scored by closely spaced, v -shaped gullies with straight sides that intersect knife -edged ridges. Father Jose Sanchez first discussed the hills in which the Project is contained in 1821. Sanchez noted in his diary that as he traveled from Mystic Lake, just west of the Project, to San Bernardino, he went over hilly, exceedingly barren country covered in brushwood, having to ascend and descend the hilly terrain numerous times with much trouble. During the 1897 to 1898 field work conducted by the USGS, the area from Reche Canyon to Lamb Canyon was given the "Badlands" designation. In 1867, Henry Hancock stated that the Badlands were "too rough to measure" and "in fact a worthless territory with scarcely any grass or water and no timber". Subsequent surveys conducted by John Goldsworthy, Jr. in 1871, George Sandow in 1879, and W.A. Goodyear in 1888 describe the hills in similar language. The rough, inhospitable terrain likely deterred development of the area historically, as it was not until the late twentieth century that the Badlands began to be utilized in the creation of the Riverside County Badlands Landfill and rock quarrying.

4.5.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION/SCOPING COMMENTS
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was released for public review on September 7, 2020 and an EIR Scoping Meeting was held September 17, 2020. No comments were made during the EIR Scoping Meeting that pertain to cultural resources. One comment was received related to cultural Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources resources from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on September 8, 2020. The NAHC requested that the EIR adhere to the Native American consultation requirements pursuant to Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52. Additionally, the Rincon Band of Luisefo Indians stated that the Project is not located within the tribe's specific Area of Historic Interest and recommended that the Project Applicant directly contact a tribe that is closer to the Project site for pertinent information. Details on tribal consultation for the Project are further discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

4.5.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following is a brief description of the federal, State, and local environmental laws and related regulations governing the protection of cultural resources.

A. Federal

1. National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S. Code Section 470 et. seq.) created the National Register of Historic Places program under the Secretary of the Interior. In addition to enticing state and local municipalities with federal funding, the NHPA provides the legal framework for most state and local preservation laws. Significant historical or archaeological resources are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, which is a program maintained by the Keeper of the National Register. The National Register program also includes National Historic Landmarks, which is limited only to properties of significance to the nation.

The NHPA established the Section 106 review procedure to protect historic and archaeological resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register from the impact of projects by a federal agency or project funded or permitted by a federal agency. The National Register is an authoritative guide to be used by governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.

Listing of private property on the National Register does not prohibit by law any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property.

2. National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the NPS's NRHP) is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources (NPS, 2019).

To be considered eligible, a property must meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. This involves examining the property's age, integrity, and significance, as follows:
o Age and Integrity. Is the property old enough to be considered historic (generally at least 50 years old) and does it still look much the way it did in the past? Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources o Significance. Is the property associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past? With the lives of people who were important in the past? With significant architectural history, landscape history, or engineering achievements? Does it have the potential to yield information through archeological investigation about our past? (NPS, 2019)
Nominations can be submitted to a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) from property owners, historical societies, preservation organizations, governmental agencies, and other individuals or groups. The SHPO notifies affected property owners and local governments and solicits public comment. If the owner (or a majority of owners for a district nomination) objects, the property cannot be listed but may be forwarded to the NPS for a Determination of Eligibility (DOE). Listing in the NRHP provides formal recognition of a property's historical, architectural, or archeological significance based on national standards used by every state (NPS, 2019).

Under Federal Law, the listing of a property in the National Register places no restrictions on what a non-federal owner may do with their property up to and including destruction, unless the property is involved in a project that receives Federal assistance, usually funding or licensing/permitting. National Register listing does not lead to public acquisition or require public access (NPS, 2019).

3. National Historic Landmarks Program
National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Today, just over 2,500 historic places bear this national distinction.

Working with citizens throughout the nation, the National Historic Landmarks Program draws upon the expertise of National Park Service staff who guide the nomination process for new Landmarks and provide assistance to existing Landmarks (NPS, 2018).

8. State

1. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4308 Section 4308, Archaeological Features, of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code provides that: "No person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of archaeological, or historical interest or value."

2. California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1427 California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1427 provides that: "No person shall collect or remove any object or thing of archeological or historical interest or value, nor shall any person injure, disfigure, deface or destroy the physical site, location or context in which the object or thing of archeological or historical interest or value is found."
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources
•

3. California Register of Historic Resources
The State Historical Resources Commission has designed this program for use by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California's historical resources. The Register is the authoritative guide to the State's significant historical and archeological resources. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for State and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (OHP, 2020).

In order for a resource to be included on the Register of Historic Resources, the resources must meet one of the following criteria:
o Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion 1).
o Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (Criterion 2).
o Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3). o Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (Criterion 4) (OHP, 2020).

For resources included on the Register of Historic Resources, environmental review may be required under CEQA if the resource is threatened by a project. Additionally, local building inspectors must grant code alternatives provided under State Historical Building Code. Further, the local assessor may enter into contract with property owner for property tax reduction pursuant to the Mills Act. A property owner also may place his or her own plaque or marker at the site of the resource (OHP, 2020).

Consent of owner is not required, but a resource cannot be listed over an owner's objections. The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) can, however, formally determine a property eligible for the California Register if the resource owner objects (OHP, 2020).

4. State Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) requires that excavation and disturbance activities must cease "In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery..." until the coroner can determine regarding the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death. The coroner is then required to make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains. Further, this section of the code makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally disturb, mutilate or remove interred human remains. Section 7051 specifies that the removal of human remains from "internment or a place of storage while awaiting Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources
•
internment" with the intent to sell them or to dissect them with "malice or wantonness" is a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison. Lastly, Health and Safety Code Sections 8010- 8011 establishes the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act consistent with the federal law addressing the same. The Act stresses that "all California Indian human remains and cultural items are to be treated with dignity and respect." It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also outlines the need for aiding California Indian tribes, including non -federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims.

5. California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 (the State CEQA Guidelines) establishes the procedure for determining the significance of impacts to archeological and historical resources, as well as classifying the type of resource. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance. The evaluation of cultural resources under CEQA is based upon the definitions of resources provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, as follows:
o A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq).
o A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
o Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency 's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources • 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
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. o The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.10) or 5024.1.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The CEQA Guidelines define a substantial adverse change as:
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or (B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources C. Local

1. City of Beaumont General Plan
The City of Beaumont General Plan identifies goals and policies related to cultural resources in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These goals and policies and a discussion of the Project's consistency are discussed in Table 4.11-1, General Plan Applicability Analysis, in EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning.

4.5.4 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, significance determinations utilized in this section are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project would result in a significant impact to cultural resources if the Project or any Project -related component would:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5; or
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

The above -listed thresholds are derived directly from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and address the typical, adverse effects related to cultural resources that could result from implementation of the Project.

4.5.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The following Regulatory Requirements (RRs) are applicable regardless of CEQA and would apply to any project under similar circumstances and, therefore, do not constitute mitigation measures.

However, they will nonetheless be included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to further ensure the implementation of the mandated RRs.

RR 5-1 The Project shall comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et. seq., which requires the County Coroner be contacted if human remains are discovered. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report

4.5.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold a: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Direct and/or indirect impacts to a listed or eligible NRHP or CRHR resource, as defined above in Sections 4.5.3A.2 and 4.5.3B.3, respectively, would result in a potentially significant impact.

BFSA reviewed the NRHP Index and Office of Historic Preservation, Built Environment Resources Directory, which did not indicate the presence of any historical resources within the Project boundaries.

As described under Section 4.5.1B.2, the Project site contains the following six potentially historic resources: RIV-5060 (historic trash scatter), RIV-5061 (historic trash scatter), P-33-006229 (historic Jack Rabbit Trail Road alignment), P-33-009027 (prehistoric isolate), P-33-015672 (potentially historic water storage tank and valves), and P-33-015673 (concrete pads and trash scatter). As previously stated, Phase II significance testing consisted of archaeological testing at the two archaeological sites, RIV-5060 and RIV-5061, which was previously identified as having historic trash scatter, while survey information and the already presented archival data was utilized for the remaining resources. Results of the Phase I and Phase II study determined that the six potentially historic resources were not eligible for listing under the CRHR. The results of the testing are presented below; however, further detail can be found in Technical Appendix D.

Site RIV-5060: The site was first recorded in 1993 as a 25x20 meter scatter of historic refuse likely a dump site associated with structures that were previously located north of the site (see RIV-5061). The investigation of Site RIV-5060 revealed that the site was used on a limited basis for the dumping of consumer, household, and kitchen refuse. The artifacts suggest that the dumping occurred between the mid -1930s until the 1950s and likely is associated with George Way, who owned the property at that time. The assemblage was spread out approximately 50 meters south of Jack Rabbit Trail, situated within an agricultural field and gentle wash along the western side of a small drainage valley. Although recorded as a dense, 25x20 -meter surface scatter of historic refuse in 1993, regular agricultural use of the property and development of a dirt access road through RIV-5060 has disturbed the site. Subsurface investigations did not reveal any significant intact deposits of historic artifacts. Further, no information could be obtained that would suggest this site area and trash scatter, or George Way, are associated with any significant events. Therefore, as Site RIV-5060 is not associated with any significant events or individual, and due to the lack of unique elements, according to the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the site is evaluated as not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP.

Site RIV-5061: The site was originally recorded in 1993 as a 15x15 meter scatter of historic refuse, mainly building materials, centered around a small 15-meter-indiameter depression, and re-recorded in 2006. The investigation of Site RIV-5061 revealed that the site was likely created when the mid - twentieth century structures located on the property were demolished. Based on the previous documentation and the current study, the limited scatter of material has steadily decreased since first being recorded. Subsurface investigations did not reveal any significant intact deposits of historic artifacts. Further, no information could be obtained that would suggest this site area and trash scatter, or George Way or Madge Rodda, who owned the property, are associated with any significant events.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources Therefore, as RIV-5061 is not associated with any significant events or individual, and due to the lack of unique elements, according to the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the site is evaluated as not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP.

Site P-33-006229: The site is a four -mile segment of Jack Rabbit Trail, approximately 0.85 mile of which traverses the southeastern corner of the Project site. This four -mile segment was recorded in 1983 by the Riverside County Historical Commission. The segment of Jack Rabbit Trail within the Project site has been impacted by use, natural erosion, modern efforts to mitigate erosion, and the repeated paving of the lower sections in the northeastern corner of the Project site. While this recorded segment of Jack Rabbit Trail route is associated with a pattern of events in local history (the evolution of a late nineteenth century wagon road into an automobile route maintained by various agencies), this trend of events did not contribute significantly to the development of the region, or to the field of road - building and engineering techniques. No information was discovered that would attribute this segment of the road to any important individual. Further, the integrity of the road has been impacted through the early twentieth-century alterations to the original trail alignment and the steady maintenance throughout the twentieth century. Beyond the documented guardrails, no other features or elements of the alignment exist within the property that reflect the historic age of the road, nor harken back to the original trail alignment before it was modified and improved for automobile use. Therefore, with the documentation of the 1920s -era guardrails and archival research, the resource's research potential is exhausted. As such, the 0.85 mile of Jack Rabbit Trail located within the Project is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP. Although the alignment is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP, as proposed, the majority of the alignment located within the steep Badlands portions of the Project is situated within open space and will not be impacted by the development of the property.

Prehistoric isolate P-33-009027: Is a granitic bifacial mano recorded in 1993. The mano was not collected; however, as an isolate, the resource is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP.

Site P-33-015672: This site was recorded as a water storage tank, two water valves, a well, and wooden posts, one containing an electrical box. Based on the site record, no definitive date for the features could be determined; therefore, no information could be obtained that directly tie the features to a historic period, individual, or events. Further, as the resource has been altered and/or destroyed, and consistent with the previous assessment, the research potential of the site has been exhausted and, therefore, P-33-015672 does not possess any historical significance. As such, the resource is evaluated as not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP, due its inability to provide further research potential.

Site P-33-015673: The site consists of two concrete pads and trash scatter located along a dirt access road generally situated in the center of the Project site. Investigation of Site P-33-015673 was initiated with a review of the surface of the site to locate the resource. At the time of survey, ground visibility was good but hindered at times by non-native weeds and grasses. The resource was relocated and all observed trash was modern, associated with the 1970s and 1980s. As such, no further investigations were conducted at the site, as it is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report

4.5 Cultural Resources
Based on the preceding, the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project will result in direct impacts to recorded cultural resources RIV-5060, RIV-5061, P-33-006229, P-33-009027, P-33-015672 and P-33- 015673. However, all of which have been evaluated as not significant and ineligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, there are no significant historical resources located within the Project site, and no impact to historical resources would occur.

Threshold b: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Although the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project will result in direct impacts to recorded cultural resources RIV-5060, RIV-5061, P-33-006229, P-33-009027, P-33-015672 and P-33-015673, based on the cultural resources inventory and records search, an intensive pedestrian survey, and Phase II significance testing, it was determined that there are no unique or significant archaeological resources on the Project site and site -specific mitigation measures with respect to these artifacts are not required.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with known archaeological resources. However, due to the presence of cultural resources documenting prehistoric and historic use of this property, and the poor ground visibility during the survey, there is a potential to impact buried prehistoric archaeological resources during ground disturbance activities (i.e., grading and excavation activities), which would result in a potentially significant impact.

Threshold c: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during ground disturbance activities associated with Project construction.

If human remains are unearthed during Project ground disturbance activities, the contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 "Disturbance of Human Remains." According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources
•
the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project would be less than significant.

4.5.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The potential for implementation of the Project to contribute to cumulative impacts to historical resources was analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in areas that were once similarly influenced by the historical agricultural industry of the City of Beaumont and the region. There are no historically significant resources on the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to historical sites and/or resources.

As discussed, under Threshold b, there are no significant archaeological resources located on the Project site. Impacts to previously undiscovered subsurface archeological resources are typically site specific from ground disturbing activities and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts, unless resources are identified immediately adjacent to the Project site. The nearest development to the Project is Hidden Canyon Industrial Park to the east, which has been graded and is currently under development. Further site- specific archeological resource investigations would be required for other projects before the City would permit ground disturbances or demolition or substantial alteration of existing structures. Such investigations would include some degree of surface -level surveying and identify resources on the affected project sites that are or appear to be eligible for listing on the national or state registers for historic resources. Such investigations would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq. (see Regulatory Requirement 5-1), would assure that all future development projects within the region treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with prescribed, respectful, and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts.

4.5.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: No Impact. No historic resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are present on the Project site; therefore, no historic resources could be altered or destroyed by construction or operation of the Project.

Threshold b: Potentially Significant Impact. No known prehistoric archeological resources are present on the Project site. Nonetheless, the potential exists for Project -related ground -disturbing activities to Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources result in a direct impact to significant subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources should such resources be discovered during Project -related ground -disturbing activities.

Threshold c: Less Than Significant Impact. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during Project ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq. Mandatory compliance with State law would ensure that human remains, if encountered, are appropriately treated, and would preclude the potential for significant impacts to human remains.

4.5.9 MITIGATION
The following mitigation measure addresses the potential for Project construction to impact significant prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present beneath the Project site and that may be discovered during ground -disturbing activities.

MM 4.5-1
MM 4.5-2
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide written verification in the form of a letter from the archaeologist to the City's Community Development Director stating that a certified archaeologist that meets the U.S.

Secretary of Interior Standards has been retained to implement the monitoring program.

The archaeologist shall be present during all ground -disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The archaeologist will conduct a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the consulting Native American Tribe(s) Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and/or designated Tribal Representative. The training session will focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground - disturbing activities as well as the procedures to be followed in such an event. The certified archaeologist and consulting tribe(s) representative shall attend the pre - grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program.

Prior to any ground -disturbing activities the project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. This Plan should be written in consultation with the consulting Tribe[s] and shall include the following: approved mitigation measures, conditions of approval, contact information for all pertinent parties, parties' responsibilities, procedures for each mitigation measure and condition of approval, and an overview of the project schedule. The monitoring program shall include the following requirements for each phase of ground disturbance:

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources
•
a) During all ground -disturbing activities the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be on -site full-time. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Archaeological and Native American monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and the soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.
b) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non -significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field so the monitored ground disturbance activities can proceed. If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60 -foot perimeter of the discovery and an environmentally sensitive area physical demarcation/barrier constructed. The archaeologist shall contact the City and consulting tribe(s) at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the City, the consulting tribe(s), and Native American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources.
c) A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the tribal cultural resource shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the tribe(s) and the Native American monitor and be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Treatment and disposition may include full avoidance; preservation in place; reburial in a permanent conservation easement or deed restriction away from future impact areas; or excavation and curation in a facility that meets Federal Curation Standards (CFR 79.1).
d) The City must concur with the evaluation before ground disturbance activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources meeting the definition of a historical resource per CEQA Section 15064.5(a) or a unique archaeological resource per CEQA Section 21083.2(g), a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the City before being carried out using professional archaeological methods.
e) Before ground disturbance activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The archaeologist shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources f) All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards.

The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
g)
A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed and submitted to the City's Community Development Director for approval and subsequently submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and consulting tribe(s), prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building in each phase of ground disturbance.

4.5.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold b: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Project. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's potential impacts to important archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

4.6 ENERGY
The analysis in this section is primarily based on a technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads titled Energy Impact Analysis, dated February 1, 2022, and included as Technical Appendix E to this EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2022c). Refer to Section 7.0, References, for a complete list of reference sources.

4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Electricity Consumption
Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped; therefore, there is currently no electricity consumed within the Project site. The Project site is located within the service area of Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electric power to more than 15 million persons in 15 counties and in 180 incorporated cities, within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000 square miles. Based on SCE's 2018 Power Content Label Mix, SCE derives electricity from varied energy resources including: fossil fuels, hydroelectric generators, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out-of-state suppliers.

According to the United States (U.S.) Energy Information Administration, California used approximately 250,175 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2020. By sector in 2020, residential uses utilized

39.4% of the state's electricity, 25.8% for industrial uses, and 0.2% for transportation. Electricity usage in California for differing land uses varies substantially by the type of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all electricity -consuming devices within a building. According to the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan, in 2017 the County consumed

2.9 billion kWh of electricity. The electricity demand was roughly 50% commercial industrial and 50% residential.

B. Natural Gas Consumption
As mentioned above, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped; therefore, there is currently no natural gas consumed within the Project site. The Project site is located within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers that receive natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southwest Gas, and several smaller natural gas utilities. The CPUC oversees utility purchases and transmission of natural gas to ensure reliable and affordable natural gas deliveries to existing and new consumers throughout the State.

According to the CEC, California used approximately 20,769 million therms of natural gas in 2020. In 2020 (the most recent year for which data is available), by sector, industrial uses utilized 34% of the state's natural gas, followed by 30% from electric power, 23% from residential, 12% from commercial, and 1% from transportation uses. While the supply of natural gas in the United States and production Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
in the lower 48 states has increased greatly since 2008, California produces little, and imports 90% of its supply of natural gas.

California's natural gas utilities provide service to over 11 million gas meters. SoCalGas and PG&E provide service to about 5.9 million and 4.3 million customers, respectively, while SDG&E provides service to over 800, 000 customers. In 2018, California gas utilities forecasted that they would deliver about 4740 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) of gas to their customers, on average, under normal weather conditions. The natural gas consumption by sector within SCG's service area is provided in Table 4.6-1, Natural Gas Consumption in SCG Service Area in 2018. As shown, SCG consumed approximately 5.2 billion therms in 2018, of which approximately 2.1 billion therms were consumed by the residential sector and 913 million therms were consumed by the commercial building sector.

Table 4.6-1 Natural Gas Consumption in SCG Service Area in 2018 Agricultural &
Water Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other
Industry
Mining &
Construction
Residential
Total Usage
78 913
75 1,714
229
2,147
5,156
Notes:
a Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 2-2)
b all numbers in millions of therms and rounded to the nearest whole number According to the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan, the County also consumed a total of 89,469,089 therms of natural gas in 2017. Approximately 55% of natural gas demand was from the commercial/industrial sector and 45% was from the residential sector.

C. Transportation Energy/Fuel Consumption
Currently, the Project site does not generate the need for transportation energy (fuel consumption). In February 2021, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) identified 35.8 million registered vehicles in California, and those vehicles consume an estimated 17.5 billion gallons of fuel each year.

California's on -road transportation system includes 394,383 land miles, more than 25.5 million passenger vehicles and light trucks, and almost 8.7 million medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. While gasoline consumption has been declining since 2008, it is still by far the dominant fuel. Petroleum comprises about 88% of all transportation energy use, excluding fuel consumed for aviation and most marine vessels. In 2019, about 314,922 trillion gallons (or about 862 billion barrels) of finished petroleum products were consumed in the U.S., an average of about 337 million gallons per day (or about 76 million barrels per day). In 2019, California consumed approximately 14,065 million gallons in motor gasoline (38.5 million per day) and approximately 3,766 million gallons of diesel fuel (10.3 million per day.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

4.6.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION/SCOPING COMMENTS
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was released for public review on September 7, 2020 and an EIR Scoping Meeting was held September 17, 2020. No comments were made on the NOP or during the EIR Scoping Meeting that pertain to energy.

4.6.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
A. Federal

1. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of inter -modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy resources. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy - related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions.

2. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. TEA -21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA -21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of wise transportation decisions. TEA -21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety. Specifically, under TEA -21, the advanced vehicle program was begun to develop clean, fuel -efficient trucks and other heavy vehicles and the clean fuels program was stated to buy or lease buses using low -polluting fuels.

B. State

1. Integrated Energy Policy Report (Senate Bill 1389)
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the state's electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state's economy; and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code Section 25301 a]). The Energy Commission prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates in alternate years, as part of the Integrated Energy Policy Report.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
The 2020 IEPR was adopted March 23, 2020, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2020 IEPR identifies actions the state and others can take to ensure a clean, affordable, and reliable energy system.

2. California Energy Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

3. California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards California Code Title 24, Part 6 (also referred to as the California Energy Code), was promulgated by the CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The newest 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title are applicable to building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 standards require solar PV systems for new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand responsive technologies for residential buildings, and update indoor and outdoor lighting standards for nonresidential buildings. The CEC anticipates that nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30% less energy due to lighting upgrades compared to the prior code.

4. AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Under this legislation, CARB adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles (cars and light - duty trucks). Although aimed at reducing GHG emissions, specifically, a co -benefit of the Pavley standards is an improvement in fuel efficiency and consequently a reduction in fuel consumption.

5. California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
The State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was initially established by SB 1078 in 2002. SB 1078 required electricity providers to increase procurement of electricity from renewable energy sources by at least 1% per year with the goal of reaching 20% renewables by 2017. SB 107 accelerated the 20% RPS requirement from 2017 to 2010. Subsequently, SB 2 (1X) increased the RPS requirements to 33% renewables by 2020 with compliance period targets of 20% by 2013 and 25% by 2016. SB 350 further increases the RPS requirement to 50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
In addition, the bill requires that 65% of RPS procurement must be derived from long-term contracts (10 years or more) starting in 2021. The most recent change is from SB 100, which increases RPS requirements to 60% by 2030, with new interim targets of 44% by 2024 and 52% by 2027 as well. The bill further requires that all of the state's electricity come from carbon -free resources (not only RPS- eligible ones) by 2045.

According to the CPUC, all electricity retail sellers either met or exceeded the interim target and are on track to achieve their compliance requirements. California's three large IOUs collectively served 36% of their 2017 retail electricity sales with renewable power. The Small and Multi -Jurisdictional Utilities (SMJUs) and ESPs served roughly 27% of retail sales with renewables and CCAs collectively served 50% of retail sales with renewable power.

6. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) In October 2015, the legislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California's commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 25% by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and local publicly owned utilities.

Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

C. Regional and Local

1. SCAG'S 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCAL)
SCAG's RTP/SCS is Southern California's regional transportation plan to achieve the vehicle emissions reductions identified under SB 375. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS retains the same purpose as the previous RTP/SCS plans in focusing and providing an integrated approach for accommodating population growth, household and employment growth, and transportation needs in the SCAG region by year 2045, including goals to improve the jobs — housing balance and reduce commuting distances.

Similar to the previous RTP/SCS plans, the projected regional development pattern under the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS would reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and thus fuel use which has the effect of reducing vehicular -travel -related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
for the SCAG region. VMT associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movement is outside the purview of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which primarily focuses on VMT associated with passenger vehicles. Under the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the focus remains on improving freight mobility in the region and transitioning to near -zero and zero -emissions technology.

2. County of Riverside Climate Action Plan
The County of Riverside CAP (December 8, 2015) was developed to comply with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4 and 15064.7 to address cumulative GHG emissions in the County, and produce reduction targets that reduce cumulative GHG impacts to less than significant. It includes reduction measures that achieve the reduction targets, and a plan to implement the reduction measures. For new development, a series of mitigation measures were generated and placed into screening tables which assigned points, specific design and construction measures, and operations strategies to be incorporated into development projects to reduce GHG emissions. A number of GHG reduction strategies in the CAP also serve to reduce or make energy use more efficient.

In 2016, Petitioners the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and San Bernardino Audubon Society challenged particular aspects of the 2015 CAP including commitments to on -site renewable energy such as solar, electric vehicles (EV), energy efficient traffic signals, and future updates of the CAP. In 2017, the County and the Petitioners entered into a Settlement Agreement with commitments to, among other things, on -site renewable energy production offsetting at least 20% of project energy needs, EV chargers, and periodic updates that enhance the CAP goals. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the County amended the 2015 CAP in July 2018 to include provisions for on - site renewable energy in the reduction measures and updated CAP Appendix F screening tables.

The County of Riverside CAP Update, November 2019 (CAP Update) establishes updated GHG emission reduction programs and regulations to implement the SB 32 reduction goals for 2030 and includes evaluation of consistency with 2050 GHG reduction targets. The CAP's Screening Table measures go beyond the State measures to reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 reduction targets, thus correlating with and supporting evolving State GHG emissions reduction goals, more efficient use of energy, and strategies beyond 2030.

Additionally, as part of the CAP, prior to issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide documentation demonstrating implementation of CAP measure R2-CE1, which includes on - site renewable energy production. This measure is required for any tentative tract map, plot plan, or conditional use permit that proposes to add more than 75 new dwelling units of residential development or one or more new buildings totaling more than 100,000 gross square feet (sf) of commercial, office, industrial, or manufacturing development. Renewable energy production shall be on -site generation of at least 20% of energy demand for commercial, office, industrial or manufacturing development, meet or exceed 20% of energy demand for multi -family residential development, and meet or exceed 30% of energy demand for single-family residential development.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

3. County Of Riverside General Plan
The Air Quality Element of the County of Riverside General Plan includes the policies that result in co -benefits related to energy conservation and efficiency. The following policies from the Air Quality Element may be applicable to the Project:

AQ 5.1 Utilize source reduction, recycling and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills.

AQ 5.4 Encourage the incorporation of energy -efficient design elements, including appropriate site orientation and the use of shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling.

AQ 20.10 Reduce energy consumption of the new developments (residential, commercial and industrial) through efficient site design that takes into consideration solar orientation and shading, as well as passive solar design.

AQ 20.11 Increase energy efficiency of the new developments through efficient use of utilities (water, electricity, natural gas) and infrastructure design. Also, increase energy efficiency through use of energy efficient mechanical systems and equipment.

AQ 20.18 Encourage the installation of solar panels and other energy efficient improvements and facilitate residential and commercial renewable energy facilities (solar array installations, individual wind energy generators, etc.).

AQ 20.20 Reduce the amount of solid waste generation by increasing solid waste recycle, maximizing waste diversion, and composting for residential and commercial generators. Reduction in decomposable organic solid waste will reduce the methane emissions at County landfills.

4. City of Beaumont General Plan
The General Plan identifies goals related to energy materials in the Conservation and Open Space Element. The following goals and policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element applicable to the Project include:

Goal 8.1: A City with green buildings and developments that promote energy efficiency.

Policy 8.1.5: Encourage new development to reduce building energy use by adopting passive solar techniques and heat island reduction strategies:
• Maximizing interior daylighting.
• Using cool exterior siding, cool roofing, and paving materials with relatively high solar reflectivity to reduce solar heat gain.
• Planting shade trees on south- and west -facing sides of new buildings to reduce energy load. • Installing water efficient vegetative cover and planting, substantial tree canopy coverage.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
Policy 8.1.7: Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards.

Goal 8.2: A City which encourages energy from renewable sources.

Policy 8.2.1: Promote the incorporation of alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private development.

4.6.4 METHODOLOGY
The information in this section contains an evaluation of the Project's potential impacts on energy consumption. As stated, the majority of the analysis presented herein is based on information obtained from the "Beaumont Pointe Energy Analysis," dated October 20, 2021, that is included as Technical Appendix E to this EIR. The analysis presented herein, details the energy demand associated with Project -related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands and efficient use of energy as required by CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. Additionally, the 2017 version of the EMissions FACtor (EMFAC) used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and to project changes in future emissions from on -road mobile sources used was utilized to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each vehicle class from the annual EMFAC2017 emission inventory traveling to and from the Project site during the Project's construction and operational activities. This energy study utilizes the different fuel types for each vehicle class from the annual EMFAC2017 emission inventory in order to derive the average vehicle fuel economy which is then used to determine the estimated annual fuel consumption associated with vehicle usage during Project construction and operational activities. For purposes of analysis, the 2022 through 2027 analysis years were utilized to determine the average vehicle fuel economy used throughout the duration of the Project. This analysis is conservative because it is anticipated that with increasing requirements for electrification of vehicles, trucks and equipment over the next 15-20 years, fuel use for Project operations will decrease.

The discussion and analysis provided below is based on the data included in the California Emissions Estimator Model (Ca1EEMod) Version 2020.4.0 output, which is included in Appendices 3.1 through

3.18 of the Project's Air Quality Analysis (Technical Appendix B1 to this EIR).

4.6.5 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, significance determinations utilized in this section are from Appendix G and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Section I of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to energy resources if the Project or any Project -related component would (OPR, 2018):
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

4.6.6 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The Project includes the following Project Design Features (PDFs) that serve to reduce the Project's impacts. The PDFs will be included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure implementation.

PDF 8-1
Office space within the warehouses shall be insulated with a minimum R-13 value in the walls and R-30 in the attic, all windows will have a minimum 0.57 U -factor and

0.32 SHGC or greater.

PDF 8-2 All roofs within the Project shall be rated at 0.15 aged solar reflectance and 0.75 thermal emittance or greater.

PDF 8-3
Occupant sensing lighting that dims to at least 50% when unoccupied shall be within the interior areas of warehouses. All interior lighting shall be LED lighting with 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures, 50 lumens/watt for 15-40 watt fixtures, and 60 lumens/watt for all fixtures exceeding 40 watts.

PDF 8-4 Office space heating within warehouses must utilize heat pumps with ducting insulation of R-4.2 or greater.

PDF 8-5
Tenant lease agreements for the Project shall include contractual language restricting trucks and support equipment from nonessential idling longer than 5 minutes while on site in compliance with the City of Beaumont Idling Ordinance.

4.6.7 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
A. Construction

1. Electricity Consumption
Construction is anticipated to commence in November 2021 and will last through May 2026. The Project would allow for the development of a maximum of 246,000 square feet (sf) of general commercial uses in addition to a 125 -room hotel (90,000 sf) and a maximum of 4,995,000 sf of industrial uses. As shown in Table 4.6-2, Construction Energy Usage, the total electricity usage from on -site Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 5,846,660 kWh. By comparison, approximately 829,347 GWh of electricity would be consumed in California over the course of the Project's construction phase based on the California daily electricity consumption estimate of approximately 685.4 GWh per day. For disclosure, the Project's petroleum consumption Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
during the construction phase would be 0.002% of the state's consumption over the course of the Project's construction phase. Therefore, because electricity use during construction would be temporary and relatively minimal in comparison to overall usage, it would not be wasteful or inefficient. Therefore, energy impacts from construction would be less than significant.

Table 4.6-2 Construction Energy Usage
Phase
Area
Land Use
Cost per kWh
Project
Construction
Electricity Usage
(kWh)
Phase 1
Industrial
Building 1
Industrial
$0.11
556,496
Parking Lot
$0.11
127,978
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
p
$0.11
68,009
Other Asphalt Surfaces
$0.11
432,731
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
1,185,215
Phase 2
Industrial
Buildings
2 & 3
Industrial
$0.11
1,068,325
Parking Lot
$0.11
227,361
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
$0.11
198,193
Other Asphalt Surfaces
$0.11
830,729
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
2,324,608
Phase 3
Industrial
Buildings
4 & 5
Industrial
$0.11
1,032,067
Parking Lot
$0.11
211,865
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
$0.11
150,638
Other Asphalt Surfaces
$0.11
802,535
Commercial
Buildings
Commercial
$0.11
139,731
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
2,336,837

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
5,846,660
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-3)

2. Transportation Energy Consumption
Project construction would represent a "single -event" fuel demand and would not require on -going or permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose. As shown in Table 4.6-3, Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates, Project construction activities would consume an estimated 1,942,071 gallons of diesel fuel during construction. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of Project construction. The aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment is estimated at 18.5 horsepower -hour per gallon (hp-hr/gal). For the purposes of this analysis, the calculations are based on all construction equipment being diesel - Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
powered which is standard practice consistent with industry standards. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing commercial fuel providers serving the City and region.

It is assumed that that 50% of all vendor trips are from light -duty -auto vehicles (LDA), 25% are from light -duty -trucks (LDT11), and 25% are from light -duty -trucks (LDT22). With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 39,645,724 VMT. As shown in Table

4.6-4 through Table 4.6-6, it is estimated that 560,915, 335,142, and 348,866 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction worker trips from LDA, LDT1, LDT2, respectively. Therefore, a total of approximately 1,244,923 gallons of fuel would be consumed in relation to construction worker trips during construction of the Project.

Construction vendor trips would generate an estimated 6,199,760 VMT along area roadways. It is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from Medium -Heavy -Duty -Trucks (MHDT), 50% of vendor trips are from Heavy -Heavy -Duty Trucks (HHDT), and 100% of hauling trips are from HHDTs. As shown in Table 4.6-7, Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates — MHDT, and Table 4.6-8, Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates — HHDT, it is estimated that 283,092 and 409,201 gallons of fuel would be consumed in relation to construction vendor trips from MHDTs and HHDTs, respectively. Therefore, a total of approximately 692,293 gallons of fuel would be consumed in relation to construction vendor trips during construction of the Project.

As shown in Table 4.6-4 through Table 4.6-8, the Project is estimated to consume 3,879,287 gallons of petroleum during the construction phase. By comparison, approximately 59 billion gallons of petroleum would be consumed in California over the course of the Project's construction phase based on the California daily petroleum consumption estimate of approximately 48.9 million gallons per day.

Also, for comparison, countywide total petroleum use by vehicles is expected to be 580 million gallons per year by 2027. For disclosure, the Project's petroleum consumption during the construction phase would be 0.007% of the state's consumption over the course of the Project's construction phase. The Project would be required to comply with CARB's Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes, CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation, and federal fuel efficiency requirements, which would minimize fuel consumption. Therefore, because petroleum use during construction would be temporary and relatively minimal in comparison to overall usage, it would not be wasteful or inefficient. Therefore, energy impacts from construction would be less than significant.
1 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs.
2 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-3 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Area
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Equipment
HP
Rating
Quantity
Usage
Hours
Load
Factor
HP-hrs/day
Total Fuel
Consumption
Phase 1
Industrial
Building 1
Grading
240
Crawler Tractors
212
4 8

0.43 2,917
37,844
Excavators
158
1 8

0.38 480
6,231
Graders
187
2 8

0.41 1,227
15,914
Rubber Tired Dozers
247
2 8

0.40 1,581
20,508
Scrapers
367
14 8

0.48 19,730
255,956
Building
Construction
347
Cranes
231
2 8

0.29 1,072
20,104
Crawler Tractors
212
6 8

0.43 4,376
82,074
Forklifts
89 6
8 0.20
854
16,026
Generator Sets
84 2
8 0.74
995
18,655
Welders
46 2
8 0.45
331
6,212
Paving
130
Pavers
130
2 8

0.42 874
6,139
Paving Equipment
132
2 8

0.36 760
5,343
Rollers
80 2
8 0.38
486
3,418
Architectural
Coating
260
Air Compressors
78 1
8 0.48
300
4,209
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL)
498,633
Phase 2
Industrial
Buildings 2
&3
Grading
265
Crawler Tractors
212
4 8

0.43 2,917
41,786
Excavators
158
1 8

0.38 480
6,880
Graders
187
2 8

0.41 1,227
17,572
Rubber Tired Dozers
247
2 8

0.40 1,581
22,644
Scrapers
367
14 8

0.48 19,730
282,618
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
IV
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Equipment
HP
Rating
Quantity
Usage
Hours
Load
Factor
HP-hrs/day
Total Fuel
Consumption
Building
Construction
609
Cranes
231
2 8

0.29 1,072
35,284
Crawler Tractors
212
7 8

0.43 5,105
168,050
Forklifts
89 7
8 0.20
997
32,814
Generator Sets
84 2
8 0.74
995
32,740
Welders
46 2
8 0.45
331
10,903
Paving
248
Pavers
130
2 8

0.42 874
11,711
Paving Equipment
132
2 8

0.36 760
10,192
Rollers
80 2
8 0.38
486
6,520
Architectural
Coating
496
Air Compressors
78 1
8 0.48
300
8,030
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL)
687,744
Phase 3
Industrial
Buildings 4
&5
Grading
270
Crawler Tractors
212
4 8

0.43 2,917
42,574
Excavators
158
1 8

0.38 480
7,010
Graders
187
2 8

0.41 1,227
17,903
Rubber Tired Dozers
247
2 8

0.40 1,581
23,071
Scrapers
367
14 8

0.48 19,730
287,950
Building
Construction
500
Cranes
231
3 8

0.29 1,608
43,453
Crawler Tractors
212
8 8

0.43 5,834
157,682
Forklifts
89 8
8 0.20
1,139
30,789
Generator Sets
84 3
8 0.74
1,492
40,320
Welders
46 3
8 0.45
497
13,427
Paving
164
Pavers
130
3 8

0.42 1,310
11,617
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
IV
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Equipment
HP
Rating
Quantity
Usage
Hours
Load
Factor
HP-hrs/day
Total Fuel
Consumption
Paving Equipment
132
3 8

0.36 1,140
10,110
Rollers
80 3
8 0.38
730
6,468
Architectural
Coating
328
Air Compressors
78 1
8 0.48
300
5,310
Commercial
Buildings
Building
Construction
130
Cranes
231
2 8

0.29 1,072
7,532
Crawler Tractors
212
6 8

0.43 4,376
30,748
Forklifts
89 6
8 0.20
854
6,004
Generator Sets
84 2
8 0.74
995
6,989
Welders
46 2
8 0.45
331
2,327
Paving
30 Pavers
130
2 8

0.42 874
1,417
Paving Equipment
132
2 8

0.36 760
1,233
Rollers
80 2
8 0.38
486
789
Architectural
Coating
60 Air Compressors
78 1
8 0.48
300
971
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL)
755,694

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL)
1,942,071
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-5)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-4 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates — LDA Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Industrial Building 1
2022
Grading
175
29 14.7
74,603

32.77 2,277
Building Construction
87 617

14.7 789,081

32.77 24,080
2023
Grading
65 29

14.7 27,710

33.79 820
Building Construction
260
617

14.7 2,358,174

33.79 69,797
Paving
130
8 14.7
15,288

33.79 452
Architectural Coating
260
124

14.7 473,928

33.79 14,027
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDA) FUEL CONSUMPTION
111,453
Phase 2
Industrial B3 Buildings 2 &
2023
Grading
152
29 14.7
64,798

33.79 1,918
Building Construction
86 766

14.7 968,377

33.79 28,662
2024
Grading
113
29 14.7
48,172

34.87 1,381
Building Construction
262
766

14.7 2,950,172

34.87 84,595
Architectural Coating
235
153

14.7 528,539

34.87 15,156
2025
Building Construction
261
766

14.7 2,938,912

36.06 81,511
Architectural Coating
261
153

14.7 587,015

36.06 16,281
Paving
248
8 14.7
29,165

36.06 809
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDA) FUEL CONSUMPTION
230,313
Phase 3
2024
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Industrial Buildings 4 &
5 Grading
152
29 14.7
64,798

34.87 1,858
Building Construction
87 869

14.7 1,111,364

34.87 31,868
2025
Grading
118
29 14.7
50,303

36.06 1,395
Building Construction
261
869

14.7 3,334,092

36.06 92,472
Paving
12 12

14.7 2,117

36.06 59
Architectural Coating
176
174

14.7 450,173

36.06 12,486
2026
Building Construction
152
869

14.7 1,941,694

37.17 52,242
Paving
152
12 14.7
26,813

37.17 721
Architectural Coating
152
174

14.7 388,786

37.17 10,460
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
277

14.7 443,837

37.17 11,942
Paving
9 8

14.7 1,058

37.17 28
Architectural Coating
39 56

14.7 32,105

37.17 864
2027
Building Construction
21 277

14.7 85,510

38.23 2,237
Paving
21 8

14.7 2,470

38.23 65
Architectural Coating
21 56

14.7 17,287

38.23 452
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDA) FUEL CONSUMPTION
219,149

TOTAL WORKER (LDA) FUEL CONSUMPTION
560,915
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-7)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-5 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates — LDT1 Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Industrial Building 1
2022
Grading
175
15 14.7
38,588

27.55 1,401
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

27.55 14,343
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

28.38 505
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

28.38 41,611
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

28.38 269
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

28.38 8,349
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT1) FUEL CONSUMPTION
66,478
Phase 2
Industrial B3 Buildings 2 &
2023
Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

28.38 1,181
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

28.38 17,060
2024
Grading
113
15 14.7
24,917

29.26 852
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

29.26 50,421
Architectural Coating
235
77 14.7
265,997

29.26 9,092
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

30.19 48,671
Architectural Coating
261
77 14.7
295,426

30.19 9,785
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

30.19 483
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT1) FUEL CONSUMPTION
137,545
Phase 3
2024
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Industrial Buildings 4 &
5 Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

29.26 1,146
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

29.26 19,016
2025
Grading
118
15 14.7
26,019

30.19 862
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

30.19 55,279
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

30.19 35
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

30.19 7,455
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

31.07 31,282
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

31.07 431
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

31.07 6,256
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

31.07 7,168
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

31.07 17
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

31.07 517
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.90 1,345
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.90 39
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

31.90 271
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT1) FUEL CONSUMPTION
131,119
TOTAL WORKER (LDT1) FUEL CONSUMPTION
335,142
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-8)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-6 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates — LDT2 Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Industrial Building 1
2022
Grading
175
15 14.7
38,588

26.03 1,482
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

26.03 15,181
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

27.02 530
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

27.02 43,707
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

27.02 283
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

27.02 8,770
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
69,953
Phase 2
Industrial B3 Buildings 2 &
2023
Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

27.02 1,240
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

27.02 17,919
2024
Grading
113
15 14.7
24,917

28.05 888
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

28.05 52,591
Architectural Coating
235
77 14.7
265,997

28.05 9,483
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

29.13 50,443
Architectural Coating
261
77 14.7
295,426

29.13 10,141
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

29.13 501
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
143,206
Phase 3
2024
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Industrial Buildings 4 &
5 Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

28.05 1,195
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

28.05 19,834
2025
Grading
118
15 14.7
26,019

29.13 893
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

29.13 57,292
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

29.13 36
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

29.13 7,727
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

30.17 32,217
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

30.17 444
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

30.17 6,443
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

30.17 7,382
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

30.17 18
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

30.17 532
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.16 1,377
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.16 40
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

31.16 277
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
135,707
TOTAL WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
348,866
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-9)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-7 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates — MHDT Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Industrial Building 1
2022
Grading
175
15 14.7
38,588

26.03 1,482
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

26.03 15,181
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

27.02 530
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

27.02 43,707
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

27.02 283
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

27.02 8,770
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
69,953
Phase 2
Industrial B3 Buildings 2 &
2023
Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

27.02 1,240
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

27.02 17,919
2024
Grading
113
15 14.7
24,917

28.05 888
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

28.05 52,591
Architectural Coating
235
77 14.7
265,997

28.05 9,483
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

29.13 50,443
Architectural Coating
261
77 14.7
295,426

29.13 10,141
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

29.13 501
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
143,206
Phase 3
2024
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Industrial Buildings 4 &
5 Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

28.05 1,195
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

28.05 19,834
2025
Grading
118
15 14.7
26,019

29.13 893
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

29.13 57,292
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

29.13 36
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

29.13 7,727
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

30.17 32,217
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

30.17 444
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

30.17 6,443
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

30.17 7,382
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

30.17 18
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

30.17 532
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.16 1,377
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.16 40
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

31.16 277
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
135,707
TOTAL WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
348,866
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-10)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-8 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates — HHDT Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Industrial Building 1
2022
Grading
175
15 14.7
38,588

26.03 1,482
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

26.03 15,181
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

27.02 530
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

27.02 43,707
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

27.02 283
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

27.02 8,770
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
69,953
Phase 2
Industrial B3 Buildings 2 &
2023
Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

27.02 1,240
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

27.02 17,919
2024
Grading
113
15 14.7
24,917

28.05 888
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

28.05 52,591
Architectural Coating
235
77 14.7
265,997

28.05 9,483
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

29.13 50,443
Architectural Coating
261
77 14.7
295,426

29.13 10,141
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

29.13 501
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
143,206
Phase 3
2024
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Construction Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Industrial Buildings 4 &
5 Grading
152
15 14.7
33,516

28.05 1,195
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

28.05 19,834
2025
Grading
118
15 14.7
26,019

29.13 893
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

29.13 57,292
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

29.13 36
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

29.13 7,727
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

30.17 32,217
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

30.17 444
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

30.17 6,443
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

30.17 7,382
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

30.17 18
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

30.17 532
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.16 1,377
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.16 40
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

31.16 277
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
135,707
TOTAL WORKER (LDT2) FUEL CONSUMPTION
348,866
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-11)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

3. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measures
The equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. There are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

The Project would utilize construction contractors who regularly comply with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off -road construction equipment. Compliance with anti -idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction -related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Additionally, certain incidental construction -source energy efficiencies would occur through implementation of California regulations and best available control measures (BACM).

For example, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Section 2449(d)(3) requires that grading plans shall reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on -site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling." In this manner, construction equipment operators are required to be informed that engines are to be turned off at or prior to five minutes of idling. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints.

Additionally, the Project will comply with CalGreen requirements for construction waste management which require recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1. 5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1).

4. Construction Summary
As shown in Table 4.6-2, the total electricity usage during construction is 5,846,660 kWh.

Additionally, construction equipment used by the Project would result in single event consumption of approximately 1,942,071 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project's proposed construction process that are unusual or energy -intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies.

CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. BACMs inform construction equipment operators of this requirement. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. Construction Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
worker trips for full construction of the proposed Project would result in the estimated fuel consumption of 1,244,925 gallons of fuel. Additionally, fuel consumption from construction vendor trips (MHDTs and HHDTs) will total approximately 692,294 gallons. Diesel fuel would be supplied by City and regional commercial vendors. Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved using bulk purchases, transport, and use of construction materials. The 2020 IEPR released by the CEC has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off - road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. Therefore, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

8. Operation

1. Facility Energy Demands
Project building operations would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by SoCalGas; electricity would be supplied to the Project by SCE. As previously stated, the analysis herein assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Standards. As such, the Ca1EEMod defaults for Title 24 — Electricity and Lighting Energy were reduced by 30% in order to reflect consistency with the 2019 Title 24 standard. Annual natural gas and electricity demands of the Project are summarized in Table 4.6-9, Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary. As shown, the Project operations will result in the total annual demand of 53,857,582 kBTU of natural gas and 25,747,206 kWh of electricity. By comparison, approximately 23 billion BTU of natural gas is consumed in California annually based on the California daily petroleum consumption estimate of approximately 64.1 billion BTU per day. For disclosure, the Project's natural gas consumption would be 0.0002% of the State's consumption in 2020. By comparison, approximately 3,717,674 GWh of electricity is consumed in California annually based on the California daily electricity consumption estimate of approximately 10,185 GWh per day. For disclosure, the Project's electricity consumption would be 0.0007% of the state's consumption in 2020.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-9 Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary Phase
Area
Land Use
Natural Gas
Demand
(kBTU/year)
Electricity
Demand
(kWh/year)
Phase 1
Industrial
Building 1
Industrial
7,744,170
6,951,720
Other Asphalt Surfaces
0 0
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
0 0
Parking Lot
0 111,011
Phase 1 Total Demand
7,744,170
7,062,731
Phase 2
Industrial
Buildings
2 & 3
Industrial
30,182,000
19,152,000
Other Asphalt Surfaces
0 0
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
0 0
Parking Lot
0 375,586
Phase 2 Total Demand
30,182,000
19,527,586
Phase 3
Industrial
Buildings
4 & 5
Industrial
30,185,000
19,163,000
Other Asphalt Surfaces
0 0
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
0 0
Parking Lot
0 375,586
Commercial
Buildings
Commercial
23,672,582
6,208,620
Other Asphalt Surfaces
0 0
Phase 3 Total Demand
53,857,582
25,747,206
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-13 and Table 14)

2. Transportation Energy Demands
Energy that would be consumed by Project -generated traffic is a function of total VMT and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. As summarized in Table 4.6-10, Project Generated Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles), the Project will result in 85,752,932 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 5,318,792 gallons of fuel. By comparison, approximately 17.9 billion gallons of petroleum would be consumed in California on an annual basis based on the California daily petroleum consumption estimate of approximately 48.9 million gallons per day. Also, for comparison, countywide total petroleum use by vehicles is expected to be 580 million gallons per year during the same year as Project Buildout 2027. For disclosure, the Project's petroleum consumption during the operational phase would be 0.004% of the state's annual consumption. The Project would be required to comply with CARB's Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes, CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation, and federal fuel efficiency requirements, which would minimize fuel consumption to the extent feasible.

Therefore, because petroleum use during operation would be relatively minimal in comparison to overall usage, it would not be wasteful or inefficient. Energy impacts from operation would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-10 Project Generated Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption (All Vehicles) Phase
Area
Vehicle Type
Annual VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated
Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Industrial
Building 1
LDA
5,543,105

33.79 164,065
LDT1
580,294

28.38 20,446
LDT2
1,788,999

27.02 66,208
MDV
1,461,802

21.45 68,135
LHDT1
983,158

14.58 67,435
LHDT2
269,988

15.26 17,697
MHDT
934,232

10.74 86,997
HHDT
6,909,272

7.44 929,211
OBUS
0 6.63
0 UBUS
0 4.97
0 MCY
249,247

37.90 6,577
SBUS
0 8.06
0 MH
0 6.17
0 Phase 1
Industrial
Building 1
TRUs
191
PHASE 1 TOTAL (ALL VEHICLES)
18,720,098
1,426,962
Phase 2
Industrial
Buildings 2 & 3
g
LDA
23,259,738

36.06 645,112
LDT1
2,430,899

30.19 80,516
LDT2
7,480,921

29.13 256,802
MDV
5,858,987

23.06 254,067
LHDT1
4,331,113

15.03 288,260
LHDT2
1,213,867

15.68 77,427
MHDT
3,943,068

11.07 356,296
HHDT
22,856,576

7.66 2,984,051
OBUS
0 6.94
0 UBUS
0 5.02
0 MCY
1,017,213

37.84 26,885
SBUS
0 8.23
0 MH
0 6.37
0 TRUs
191
PHASE 2 TOTAL (ALL VEHICLES)
72,392,382
4,969,609
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Phase
Area
Vehicle Type
Annual VMT
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated
Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 3
Industrial
Buildings 4 & 5
g
LDA
23,233,083

38.23 607,730
LDT1
2,424,667

31.90 75,997
LDT2
7,464,796

31.16 239,592
MDV
5,636,358

24.73 227,959
LHDT1
4,396,621

15.52 283,244
LHDT2
1,246,839

16.17 77,115
MHDT
3,991,451

11.41 349,893
HHDT
22,973,665

7.94 2,892,335
OBUS
0 7.25
0 UBUS
0 5.10
0 MCY
989,741

37.79 26,189
SBUS
0 8.41
0 MH
0 6.59
0 TRUs
191
Phase 3
Commercial
Buildings
LDA
7,300,006

32.59 223,993
LDT1
762,511

27.49 27,733
LDT2
2,345,977

25.46 92,148
MDV
1,771,543

20.63 85,863
LHDT1
323,707

13.59 23,815
LHDT2
91,828

13.78 6,664
MHDT
156,127

9.09 17,176
HHDT
247,151

6.37 38,794
OBUS
8,145

6.50 1,253
UBUS
3,925

3.83 1,025
MCY
310,405

37.16 8,354
SBUS
14,588

8.00 1,823
MH
59,798

6.15 9,718
PHASE 3 TOTAL (ALL VEHICLES)
85, 752, 932
5,318, 792
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 4-12)

3. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measures
Energy efficiency and conservation measures of the Project would be complemented by increasingly stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies; and enhanced Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
building energy efficiencies mandated under the California Building Code (e.g., Title 24, Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code), and use of on -site alternative energy sources such as solar or wind to generate at least 20% of electricity for Project operation. In addition, a number of CAP checklist points that the Project will implement further increase energy efficiency in Project operations.

These include enhanced wall and windows insulation, cool roof, efficient lighting, water efficient landscaping and irrigation, on -site graywater irrigation system, car/vanpool program, and EV charging stations for cars and trucks (see Technical Appendix G, GHG Report, Table 4-1 CAP Checklist).

Project annual fuel consumption estimates conservatively represent likely potential maximums that would occur for the Project. Under subsequent future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel -efficient vehicles are removed from circulation, and in response to fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the circulation system. Additionally, the Project would comply with CARB's regulation for truck idling, which would prohibit trucks from idling for no more than five minutes. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT will result in further decrease in the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicle and truck trips to and from the Project site. Furthermore, in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-8, all on -site outdoor cargo -handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on -site equipment) shall be electric or non -diesel fueled; and all on -site indoor forklifts shall be powered by electricity. Additionally, the Project's location proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands.

Mobile sources from the Project would result in approximately 5.3 million gallons of gasoline per year beginning in 2027. By comparison, California as a whole consumes approximately 17.9 billion gallons of petroleum per year. Countywide total petroleum use by vehicles is expected to be 580 million gallons per year by 2027 so that Project gasoline use would be 0.9% of fuel used in Riverside County in 2027.

Over the lifetime of the Project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the employees is expected to increase as is the number of electric cars in use. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed by vehicular trips to and from the Project site during operation would decrease over time.

There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog - causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single, coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero -emissions vehicles in California. Additionally, in response to SB 375, CARB adopted the goal of reducing per - capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% by 2020, and 19% by 2030 for light -duty passenger vehicles in the planning area for the Southern California Association of Governments. The Southern California Association of Governments' RTP/SCS quantified an 8% reduction of petroleum use by 2020 and an 19% reduction by 2035. As such, operation of the Project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
In summary, although the Project would increase petroleum use during operation as a result of employees and customers traveling to and from the Project site and Project -related distribution of goods, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide use and due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful and would result in a less -than -significant impact.

To further reduce energy use associated with Project operations to the extent feasible, the Project would incorporate the following features into the new facility thus also complying with the requirements of Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines (OPR, 2018) to achieve the goal of energy conservation by decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. Approximately 20% of the power needs of each building within the Project site shall be provided by Solar Photovoltaic panels or wind, installed on buildings or in collective arrangements total energy consumption. Additionally, the Project shall implement the County of Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening Table Measures shown in Table 3-2. The City of Beaumont recognizes that the technological and methodological specifications in the criteria could become obsolete in the future due to advancement over time. In that event, the Project may implement new technologies and methodologies if they achieve at least as much environmental protection and do not result in new or greater significant environmental impacts than the technologies or methodologies specified in the Table 3-2.

4. Operations Summary
The total estimated annual fuel consumption from Project generated VMT would result in a fuel demand 5,318,792 gallons of fuel. Trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Ed., 2017); and Ca1EEMod. That is, the Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Furthermore, location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would include sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

With respect to Project building operation, the Project facility operational energy demands are estimated at: 53,857,582 kBTU/yr of natural gas; and 25,747,206 kWh/yr of electricity. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
designs and operational programs. Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy intensive, and the Project energy demands in total would be comparable to, or less than, other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration. Last, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards, such as installing on -site renewable energy. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Implementation of the Project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the Project site and petroleum consumption in the region during operation. However, the electrical and natural gas consumption demands of the Project during operation would conform to the state's Title 24 and to CALGreen standards, which implement conservation measures and are made further efficient by application of CAP points to the Project. Further, the proposed Project would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities and providers of electricity and natural gas are in compliance with regulatory requirements that assist in conservation, including requirements that electrical providers achieve state -mandated renewal energy production requirements.

Further, the energy demands of the Project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The analysis below presents the Project's consistency with federal, State, and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

A. Federal Energy Regulations

1. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Transportation and access to the Project site is provided primarily by the local and regional roadway systems. The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site.

2. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access, acts to reduce VMT, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA -21. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA -21.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report
B.

1. State Policies and Regulations
Integrated Energy Policy Report

4.6 Energy
Electricity would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE's Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper builds on existing State programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. Additionally, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

As such, development of the Project would support, and not conflict with, the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR.

2. State of California Energy Plan
The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access and acts to reduce VMT by developing industrial uses. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan.

3. California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards The 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2020. The Project will comply with the 2019 Title 24 Standards; therefore, the Ca1EEMod defaults for Title 24 — Electricity and Lighting Energy were reduced by 30% in order to reflect consistency with the 2019 Title 24 standard. In addition to energy efficiency measures for electricity and lighting, Title 24 also contains efficiency measures for water heating, air conditioning, windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs. CEC anticipates that nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30% less energy compared to the prior code. The Project would be consistent with, and not conflict with Title 24.

4. AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards AB 1493 is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493.

5. California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
California's RPS is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

6. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) The Project would use energy from SCE, which has committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption (see Table 3-2 of this EIR). Measures include but are not limited to: enhanced insulation, modest cool roofs, improved efficiency HVAC, water heaters, and lights, and Energy Star appliances.

7. SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), developed with input from local governments, including the City of Beaumont, establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light -duty trucks for 2035, 2045 and implements an overall VMT reduction target for the region consistent with the statewide VMT-reduction targets under SB 375 which results in decreasing fuel consumption. Under SB 375, the VMT reduction targets must be incorporated within that region's RTP/SCS. Certain transportation planning and programming activities would then need to be consistent with the RTP/SCS; however, SB 375 expressly provides that the RTP/SCS does not regulate the use of land, and further provides that local land use plans and policies (e.g., general plan) are not required to be consistent with either the RTP/SCS.

The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan to encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of a regional intermodal transportation system that, when linked with appropriate land use planning, will serve the mobility needs of goods and people.

Future investments seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region's network, and expand mobility choices. By furthering the goal of reducing VMT, the RTP/SCS has the effect of reducing energy consumption. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements through VMT reductions in the region. The RTP/SCS also promotes preservation of open space areas, improvements to public health and roadway safety, the vital goods movement industry, and more efficient uses of resources.

The Project involves the development of a contemporary industrial park that abuts a developing industrial area along a regional transportation network (SR -60, I-15 and I-215). The Project would generate approximately 5,456 permanent jobs. By providing job opportunities in a housing -rich area and industrial uses in close proximity to the regional transportation network. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under the RTP/SCS and helps reduce commuting distance to jobs, thus helping reduce fuel use. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the RTP/SCS. Refer also to Table 4.11-2, SCAG Connect SoCal Applicability Analysis, in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

8. County of Riverside Climate Action Plan
To comply with the CAP, the Project would implement various measures associated with waste and wastewater reductions as well as reduced energy use, increased energy efficiency and water demand reductions. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project's design features will achieve a minimum of 201 Screening Table Points and would be consistent with the CAP 's requirement to achieve at least 100 points. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the CAP.

9. County of Riverside General Plan
The Riverside County has many General Plan policies that help reduce energy consumptions, reduce wastewater generation, and increase recycling. Policies to indirectly contribute to energy consumption reductions include air quality policies for improving air quality by emphasizing energy efficiency, alternate forms of energy, water efficiency, recycling, and alternative transportation options for communities. Table 4.6-11, County of Riverside General Plan Applicability Analysis, provides an analysis of the Project's applicability with County of Riverside General Plan policies related to energy directly and indirectly. As shown in Table 4.6-11, the Project would not result in any inconsistency with the applicable General Plan goals and policies. The Project would not interfere with the County's goal to reduce GHG emissions. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Table 4.6-11 County of Riverside General Plan Applicability Analysis General Plan Policy
Applicability
AQ 5.2: Adopt incentives and/or regulations to enact
energy conservation requirements for private and public developments.

Not Applicable
AQ 5.3: Update, when necessary, the County's Policy
Manual for Energy Conservation to reflect revisions to
the County Energy Conservation Program.

Not Applicable
AQ 5.4: Encourage the incorporation of energy -efficient design elements, including appropriate site orientation and the use of shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling.

No Conflict. The Project shall implement the County of
Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening
Table Measures which include cool roofs, enhanced
insulation, and energy efficient heating/cooling
equipment. Additionally, the Project would include a
project design feature, which indicates 20% of the
Project's energy consumption would be from solar.

Further, the Project would implement streetscape
landscaping with a combination of evergreen and
deciduous trees, low shrubs, and masses of
groundcovers.

AQ 20.10: Reduce energy consumption of the new
developments (residential, commercial and industrial)
through efficient site design that takes into
No Conflict. The Project would provide alternate
energy source for 20% of the total project demand.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
General Plan Policy
Applicability
consideration solar orientation and shading, as well as passive solar design.

AQ 20.11: Increase energy efficiency of the new
developments through efficient use of utilities (water, electricity, natural gas) and infrastructure design. Also, increase energy efficiency through use of energy
efficient mechanical systems and equipment.

No Conflict. The Project shall implement the County of
Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening
Table Measures which include cool roofs, enhanced
insulation, and energy efficient heating/cooling
equipment.

AQ 20.12: Support programs to assist in the energy-
efficient retrofitting of older affordable housing units to improve their energy efficiency, particularly residential units built prior to 1978 when CCR Title 24 energy
efficiency requirements went into effect.

Not Applicable
AQ 20.18: Encourage the installation of solar panels and other energy efficient improvements and facilitate
residential and commercial renewable energy facilities
(solar array installations, individual wind energy
generators, etc.).

No Conflict. The Project would provide alternate
energy source for 20% of the total project demand.

AQ 20.19: Facilitate development and sitting of
renewable energy facilities and transmission lines in
appropriate locations.

Not Applicable
AQ 20.20: Reduce the amount of solid waste generation
by increasing solid waste recycle, maximizing waste
diversion, and composting for residential and
commercial generators. Reduction in decomposable
organic solid waste will reduce the methane emissions
at County landfills.

No Conflict. The Project shall implement the County of
Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening
Table Measures which include recycling efforts and
requirements, including providing separated trash and
recycling bins for each building and developing
recycling programs to achieve an 80% reduction in
waste.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 5-2)

10. City of Beaumont General Plan
The General Plan identifies goals related to energy materials in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These goals and policies and a discussion of the Project's consistency are discussed in Table

4.6-12, City of Beaumont General Plan Applicability Analysis. As shown, the Project would be consistent with, and not conflict with, the City's General Plan goals and policies related to energy efficiency.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report
Table 4.6-12
City of Beaumont General Plan Applicability Analysis

4.6 Energy
General Plan Policy
Consistency
Conservation and Open Space (Chapter 8)
Goal 8.1: A City with green buildings and developments that promote energy efficiency.

Policy 8.1.5: Encourage new development to
reduce building energy use by adopting passive
solar techniques and heat island reduction
strategies:
• Maximizing interior daylighting.
• Using cool exterior siding, cool roofing,
and paving materials with relatively high
solar reflectivity to reduce solar heat gain.
• Planting shade trees on south- and west -
facing sides of new buildings to reduce
energy load.
• Installing water efficient vegetative cover
and planting, substantial tree canopy
coverage.

No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, and 4.85, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
of this EIR, the Project shall implement the
County of Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan
(CAP) Screening Table Measures which include
cool roofs, enhanced insulation, and water
efficient landscaping. Therefore, the Project
would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.1.5.

Policy 8.1.7: Encourage new buildings and
buildings undergoing major retrofits to exceed
Title 24 energy efficiency standards.

No Conflict. The Project will implement with CAP
points and project design features that meet or
exceed Title 24 standards. Energy
efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the
Project would be complemented by increasingly
stringent State and federal regulatory actions
addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle
emissions standards; and enhanced
building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated
under California building codes (e.g., Title 24,
California Green Building Standards Code). The
Project proposes conventional industrial uses
reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy
conserving designs and operational programs.

Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently
energy intensive, and the Project energy demands
in total would be comparable to, or less than, other
industrial projects of similar scale and
configuration. Therefore, the Project would not
conflict General Plan Policy 8.1.7.

Goal 8.2: A City which encourages energy from renewable sources.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ I Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
General Plan Policy
Consistency
Policy 8.2.1: Promote the incorporation of
No Conflict. Approximately 20% of the power
alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind,
biomass) in public and private development.
needs of each building within the Beaumont
Pointe Specific Plan shall be provided by Solar
Photovoltaic panels or wind, installed on
buildings or in collective arrangements.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with
General Plan Policy 8.2.1.

11. Summary
As demonstrated above, the Project would not conflict with any federal, State or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The Project would be consistent with the County's Climate Action Plan strategies and with the City's General Plan policies as well as all state energy efficiency requirements. Furthermore, the Project would minimize construction and operational energy use through energy reduction strategies pursuant to project design features which include measures from the County's CAP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Cumulative impacts result if the Project, along with cumulative projects, taken together could result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require an energy analysis, consistency with existing plans and policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and implementation of control measures and mitigation if necessary to avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The areas considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are the service areas of the SCE and SoCalGas, respectively, described above in Section 4.6.1.

Buildout of the Project, related projects, and additional forecasted growth in SCE's service area would cumulatively increase the demand for electricity supplies and infrastructure capacity. As with the Project, during construction and operation, other future development projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features and comply with applicable regulations including CALGreen and state energy standards under Title 24, which would contribute in minimizing wasteful energy consumption. As such, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of electricity would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant.

Buildout of the Project, related projects, and additional forecasted growth in SoCalGas' service area would cumulatively increase the demand for natural gas supplies and infrastructure capacity. Based on the 2018 California Gas Report, the CEC estimates natural gas consumption within SoCalGas' planning area will be approximately 2,519 million cf per day in 2022 (CEC, 2018). Based on the Project's estimated natural gas consumption of 53,857,582 kBTU/yr the Project would account for approximately 2.1% of SoCalGas' anticipated annual consumption. Although Project development Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ n Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
would result in the use of natural gas resources, the use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale, reduced by measures rendering the Project more energy -efficient, and consistent with regional and local growth expectations for SoCalGas' service area. Furthermore, future development projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features and comply with applicable regulations including CALGreen and state energy standards under Title 24. As such, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of natural gas would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant.

Buildout of the Project, related projects, and additional forecasted growth would cumulatively increase the demand for transportation -related fuel in the state and region. As described above, the Project would consume 1,942,071 gallons of diesel fuel during construction. The Project's operation would result in an estimated fuel consumption 5,318,792 gallons of fuel per year. For comparison, the CEC Transportation Energy Demand Forecast estimates that between 12.3 billion to 12.7 billion gallons of gasoline and 3.7 billion to 4.7 billion gallons of diesel will be consumed in the year 2030. As with the Project, other future development projects would be expected to reduce VMT by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation and other design features that promote VMT reductions.

Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of transportation fuel would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant.

4.6.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The amount of energy and fuel consumed by construction and operation of the Project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Furthermore, the Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or energy delivery systems.

Accordingly, the Project's impacts associated with energy consumption would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.10 MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

4.6.11 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts are less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section identifies and evaluates the Project's potential to result in impacts relating to geology and soils. Information presented in this section is primarily based on the following technical reports, which are included in their entirety in Technical Appendices F1, 12, II, and F2, respectively, of this EIR:
o Kling Consulting Group, Inc (KCG). 2021. Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, 539.9 Acre Industrial/Commercial Development, Jack Rabbit Trail, Beaumont Area, Riverside County, California. July 23, 2021.

This technical report is referred to herein as "Geotechnical Report." o Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc. (PECW) 2022a. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study for Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, City of Beaumont, County of Riverside, California. January 22, 2022.
o Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc. (PECW). 2022b. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan for Beaumont Pointe. April 11, 2022.
o Brian F. Smith Associates (BFSA). 2021. Paleontological Resource Impact Monitoring Program for the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project. March 10, 2021. This technical report is referred to herein as "PRIMP."
Additional references used for this section are listed in Section 7.0, References.

4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Regional Geology
The Project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California.

This area lies along the southern boundary of the San Timoteo River Valley and is located within the western San Jacinto Mountains. This area is commonly known as the San Timoteo Badlands.

The site lies within the San Jacinto Fault block, which is comprised of weathered and eroded pre - Cenozoic metamorphic and granitic basement rocks, as well as Plio-Pleistocene aged sedimentary bedrock of the San Timoteo Formation. The San Jacinto Block is bordered by the Banning Fault on the north, and by the San Jacinto Fault on the south. Both the San Jacinto Fault and the Banning Fault are considered to belong to the seismically active San Andreas Fault System. The site is comprised primarily of relatively soft to locally hard San Timoteo Formation bedrock, as well as younger alluvium and older alluvium. The sediments composing the San Timoteo Formation were derived from eroded pre -Cenozoic units. The younger alluvium and older alluvium were derived from the pre -Cenozoic basement rocks as well as the San Timoteo Formation.

The site is situated along the northeasterly edge of an accumulation of sedimentary deposits that form an extensive hillside area known as "The Badlands." The subject site is characterized by rugged steep ridges and hillsides with narrow canyons that are generally situated on the southwest portion of the site and relatively gentle ridges and broad canyons/valleys on the northwest portion of the site. A roughly Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
•
northwest trending drainage divide directs drainage to the north into San Timoteo Canyon and south through the badlands into San Jacinto Valley. Elevations range from approximately 2,230 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northwest portion of the site to approximately 2,510 feet above msl in the southeast. Bedrock exposures at the surface are relatively limited with most exposures visible along existing dirt road cuts.

B. Soil
Four (4) types of geological units (surficial soils and bedrock unit) were encountered on the Project site during the Geotechnical Report performed by KCG: undocumented artificial fill; topsoil/slopewash/colluvium, and alluvium; and San Timoteo Formation bedrock. The characteristics of the soil conditions encountered on the Project site are summarized below.

1. Undocumented Artificial Fill
Undocumented artificial fill is locally present within the Project site and is typically associated with past site improvements such as development of the Jack Rabbit Trail through the drainage area near the southeastern portion of the Project site and a former borrow area along the east side of a ridge in the southeastern portion of the Project site. Artificial fill materials would also be anticipated to be present in any of the existing utility easements on the Project site. These fill materials appear to be typically derived from on -site soils and are estimated to be between one (1) and ten (10) feet thick. In general, these fills are not considered suitable for support of additional fill placement or structures (KCG, 2021).

2. Topsoil/Slopewash/Colluvium
Colluvium, topsoil, and slopewash materials are considered interchangeable designations for the purposes of this analysis and are typically referred to herein as "colluvium." These materials were observed locally mantling natural slopes untouched by prior mining or grading activities as well as (rarely) observed beneath undocumented fill materials. Topsoil and colluvial materials are a result of weathering processes of the underlying bedrock materials. These materials were typically observed to be less than approximately 3 feet thick but do vary in thickness locally up to approximately 8 feet.

These materials were generally observed to consist of sandy clay and silty sand and were damp to moist. These materials also ranged from very loose, to loose and soft, to stiff and contained plant roots, root hairs, and were porous (KCG, 2021).

3. Alluvium
Holocene alluvial fan deposits were observed in the canyon and drainage areas. Holocene aged younger alluvium was encountered overlying Pleistocene aged older alluvium (alluvial fan) deposits within the Project site. The alluvium generally consists of silty sand with minor interbeds of sandy silt, clayey sand or sandy clay and traces of fine to coarse gravel. The younger alluvial deposits are locally porous, generally dry to moist, and loose to medium dense in the upper 7.5 feet to 30 feet and slightly porous; further below the alluvium conditions change to dry to wet, and medium dense to dense. Older alluvium was encountered underlying the Younger alluvium at depths of approximately 15 to 50 feet and Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils generally consisted of dense to very dense silty sand, silty sands with gravel, very stiff to hard sandy and clayey silt and sandy clays which were damp to moist. Younger alluvium appears to be 50 feet thick to greater than 51.5 feet thick in the northcentral and northwest drainage/canyon area of the Project site (KCG, 2021).

4. Bedrock Unit/San Timoteo Formation
Pliocene aged San Timoteo Formation bedrock was observed predominantly in the hillside areas and presumed to underlie the alluvial deposits at depth. Within the Project site, the San Timoteo Formation is composed of laminated and cross -bedded, to massively bedded arkosic and lithic sandstones, as well as some conglomerates, claystones and siltstones. The San Timoteo Formation is typically dry to damp.

The San Timoteo Formation ranged from dense to very dense and stiff to hard. The upper, approximately 5 feet of the San Timoteo Formation bedrock was moderately to heavily weathered.

C. Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during within the low-lying drainage areas in the northern -northwest portion of the Project site. In these locations, groundwater was encountered between approximately 40 feet below the ground surface (bgs) and 48 feet bgs. It should be noted that variations in groundwater may result from fluctuations in the ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors that may not be evident at the time of the subsurface exploration for the Project (KCG, 2021).

D. Seismic Hazards
The Project site is located in an area of southern California that is subject to strong ground motions due to seismic events (i.e., earthquakes). The geologic structure of southern California is dominated mainly by northwest -trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey as a fault that has experienced surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). No evidence of active faulting was observed on -site during site exploration. The nearest active fault to the Project site is the San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley Fault, located approximately 3 miles to the southwest of the Project site. Table 4.7-1, Major Significant Faults in the Project Site Vicinity, summarizes 12 of the known active and potentially active faults, which have the greatest potential to impact the Project site (KCG, 2021).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report
Table 4.7-1

4.7 Geology and Soils
Major Significant Faults in the Project Site Vicinity
Fault Name
Approximate Distance from
the Project site (miles)
Maximum Event (Moment
Magnitude), Mw*
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley

3.4 7.9
S. San Andreas - San Bernardino

9.3 8.1
Pinto Mountain

20.3 7.3
Elsinore - Glenn Ivy

25.1 6.9
Elsinore - W + Glenn Ivy

25.1 7.3
Cleghorn

25.4 6.8
Elsinore - Glenn Ivy+Temecula+J+CM

25.6 7.4
Elsinore - Temecula + Julian

26.2 7.5
Cucamonga

28.1 6.7
North Frontal (West)

29.0 7.2
Helendale - S. Lockhardt

29.7 7.4
Chino - Alt 2

30.8 6.8
* Mw is a measure of an earthquake's magnitude ("size" or strength) based on its seismic moment.

Source: (KCG, 2021, as cited in USGS, 2008)
Based on a review of historical earthquakes which have occurred within a 62 -miles radius from the Project site since 1800, the earthquake with the most significant impact occurred in 1923, approximately 12 miles northwest of the site. The earthquake was located on the San Jacinto Fault and had an estimated magnitude of 6.8 Mw (KCG, 2021).

Secondary hazards associated with earthquakes include surface rupture, ground failure, unstable soils and slopes. Each of these hazards is briefly described below.

2. Fault Rupture
Fault rupture can occur along pre-existing, known active fault traces; however, fault rupture also can splay from known active faults or rupture along unidentified fault traces. There are no active or potentially active faults occurring on the Project site and no known faults are mapped trending through or toward the site. Additionally, the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the Project site is considered to be very low (KCG, 2021).

3. Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesion -less soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions, which causes the soil to behave as a viscous liquid.

Liquefaction is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of subsurface soils. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils of Holocene to late Pleistocene age below a near -surface groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most clayey material is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Based on mapping conducted by the California Geologic Survey/California Department of Conservation, the Project site is not located within a designated liquefaction hazard zone (CGS, 2019a). Additionally, the Riverside County General Plan - Safety Element - and the Riverside County Mapping and Spatial Data Portal identify the Project site as located Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

ME
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
within an area of "very low" to "low" and "moderate" susceptibility to liquefaction (Riverside County, 2019b).

Portions of the Project site appear to be susceptible to relatively minor amounts of liquefaction settlement. The magnitudes of seismic —induced liquefaction settlement appear to be relatively minor and somewhat localized, occurring generally below depths of 40 feet where groundwater was encountered in the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site (KCG, 2021).

Due to the lack of a shallow static groundwater level and the materials encountered underlying the Project site are overall relatively dense and stiff nature, the materials are not considered to be susceptible to significant amounts of liquefaction induced seismic settlement. Furthermore, the potential for lateral spreading is also low, since the site is not susceptible to significant amounts of liquefaction induced settlement. (KCG, 2021).

4. Settlement
The estimated settlement due to earthquake -induced dry settlement ranges from approximately 0.6 inches to 4.6 inches. Differential settlements are estimated to range from approximately a little over

0.25 -inches to 3.0 inches over a distance of 50 feet. The majority of the seismic induced dry settlement occurs in the upper 10 to 30 feet within the younger alluvial materials. The older alluvial materials underlying the younger alluvium at the site are overall relatively dense and the dry settlement potential is considered relatively minor to negligible (KCG, 2021).

5. Unstable Soils and Slopes
The Project site is not mapped within a State of California designated Hazard Zone for Slope Instability. The Riverside County General Plan — Safety Element — indicates that portions of the Project site may have "low" to "moderate" susceptibility for seismic induced slope instability (KCG, 2021).

6. Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is not located near any ocean or landlocked bodies of water; therefore, tsunamis or seiches are not considered to be a potential hazard to the Project site.

E. Slope and Instability Hazards

1. Soil Erosion
Erosion is the process by which the upper layers of the surface (such as soils) are worn and removed by the movement of water or wind. Soils with characteristics such as low permeability and/or low cohesive strength are more susceptible to erosion than those soils having higher permeability and cohesive strength. Additionally, the slope gradient on which a given soil is located also contributes to the soil's resistance to erosive forces. Because water is able to flow faster down steeper gradients, the steeper the slope on which a given soil is located, the more readily it will erode.

Bedrock units include the San Timoteo Formation and the surficial units include undocumented artificial fill, colluvium, and alluvium (Qal). Bedrock encountered during this investigation was Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
•
moderately hard to hard and is considered to be slightly to moderately erodible. In general, surficial soils encountered are typically granular and appear to be readily erodible as evidenced by their soft to loose state and localized erosion gullies (KCG, 2021).

2. Settlement Potential
Settlement refers to unequal compression of a soil foundation, shrinkage, or undue loads being applied to a building after its initial construction that affect the soil foundation. The undocumented artificial fill soils, colluvium, and loose younger alluvial soils present on the Project site have settlement potential (KCG, 2021).

3. Shrinkage
Shrinkage is the reduction in volume in soil as the water content of the soil drops (i.e., loss of volume).

On -site alluvium soils are susceptible to shrinkage (KCG, 2021).

4. Expansion
Expansive soils are soils that exhibit cyclic shrink and swell patterns in response to variations in moisture content. The on -site geologic formations are comprised of mostly sandstone, which generates soils that are generally sandy and therefore low in expansion potential. However, siltstone/clay layers subject to excavation would produce clayey soils, which would be expansive. (KCG, 2021).

5. Landslide Potential
As mentioned above, in Subsection 4.7.1D.5, the Project site is not mapped within a State of California designated Hazard Zone for Slope Instability. The Riverside County General Plan — Safety Element — indicates that portions of the Project site may have "low" to "moderate" susceptibility for seismic induced slope instability, or landslide potential (KCG, 2021).

F. Paleontological Setting

1. Regional Setting
The Project site is underlain by middle Pliocene to lower Pleistocene (about 3 million to approximately

1.7 million years old) fossiliferous middle member of the San Timoteo Formation, with Holocene (modern) young alluvial fan deposits lining drainage valleys. Minor surficial units include upper Pleistocene to mostly Holocene (50,000 years old to modern) young landslide deposits, and a few small patches of middle Pleistocene (about 0.6 million years old) very old alluvial fan deposits (BSFA, 2021).

In the vicinity of the Project, the San Timoteo Formation consists of sheeted conglomerates, sandy mudstones, and poorly indurated sandstones. Many conglomerate beds grade upward into finer alluvial layers, which, in turn, grade into reddish paleosols. The middle member of the San Timoteo Formation conformably overlies the sandstone unit of the lower member, which in turn conformably overlies the upper Miocene Mount Eden Formation, consisting of fluvio-lacustrine mudstones and sandstones (BSFA, 2021).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
Regionally, the Project site is located within the San Timoteo Badlands, a rugged area underlain by approximately 2,000 meters of nonmarine sedimentary rocks spanning a period of deposition from approximately seven or eight million to about 0.5 million years ago, and includes the San Timoteo Formation. The San Timoteo Badlands occupy an area bracketed by the northwest -southeast trending San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones. Within this area, cessation of major depositional systems occurred about 700,000 years ago, coinciding with initiation of the erosion of landforms as a result of regional tectonics (BSFA, 2021).

Areas mapped as the San Timoteo Formation, as well as Quaternary young landslide deposits (which are composed of the San Timoteo Formation), are indicated as having a High Potential/Sensitivity to yield nonrenewable paleontological resources (BSFA, 2021).

2. Project Site Conditions
No paleontological resources have been discovered on the Project site; however, the site is identified as having a High Potential/Sensitivity to yield nonrenewable paleontological resources. Past research has identified 13 fossil localities along the length of Jack Rabbit Trail, two of which ("Paleomag. site 195" and "Paleomag. site 202A") lie just outside the southern Project boundary, while a third is located west of the Property boundary, about one-third of a mile ("Paleomag. site 187"). The other localities along Jack Rabbit Trail are located further southwest beyond one mile, as well as two more located northwest of the Project between one and two miles distant.

Specimens of several rodent species were recovered from the San Timoteo Formation, including extinct species of porcupine, gopher, kangaroo rat, cotton rat, pack rat, vole, and deer mouse. Other mammalian taxa include rabbit, shrew, and horse (Plesippus idahoensis) fossils. Additional mammalian fossils at the northern locality located about two miles northwest of the northern area of the project include coyote, tapir, and a different species of horse (Equus). Finally, a mammoth tooth was recovered at the surface about five miles northwest of the Project (BSFA, 2021).

A field survey was conducted on June 6, 2019. Outside of the Project site, along Jack Rabbit Trail, fossil localities, "Paleomag. site 195" and "Paleomag. site 202A," were approximately located and investigated. No fossils were observed.

4.7.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION/SCOPING COMMENTS
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was released for public review on September 7, 2020 and an EIR Scoping Meeting was held September 17, 2020. No comments were made on the NOP or during the EIR Scoping Meeting that pertain to geology and soils.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
•

4.7.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following is a brief description of the federal, State, and local environmental laws and related regulations governing issues related to geology and soils.

A. Federal

1. Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was substantially reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972. Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry, and also has set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters (EPA, 2017a).

B. State

1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A -P Act) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A -P Act) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The A -P Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The A -P Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards (California Legislative Information, 1994).

The A -P Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. ["Earthquake Fault Zones" were called "Special Studies Zones" prior to January 1, 1994.] The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. Single family wood -frame and steel -frame dwellings up to two stories not part of a development of four units or more are exempt.

However, local agencies can be more restrictive than State law requires (California Legislative Information, 1994).

Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. An evaluation and written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
•
structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet) (California Legislative Information, 1994).

2. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690-2699.6) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property through the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of seismic hazards. (CGS, 2019b) Staff geologists in the Seismic Hazard Zonation Program gather existing geological, geophysical, and geotechnical data from numerous sources to produce the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps. They integrate and interpret these data regionally in order to evaluate the severity of the seismic hazards and designate as Zones of Required Investigation (ZORI) those areas prone to liquefaction and earthquake —induced landslides. Cities and counties are then required to use the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes (CGS, 2019b).

The SHMA requires site -specific geotechnical investigations be conducted within the ZORIs to identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy (CGS, 2019b).

3. Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, effective June 1, 1998 (as amended June 9, 1998), requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" when the property being sold lies within one or more state -mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone (California Legislative Information, 2019).

The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (Zones of Required Investigation) and to issue appropriate maps (Seismic Hazard Zone maps). These maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling construction and development. Single-family frame dwellings up to two stories not part of a development of four or more units are exempt from the state requirements. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than state law requires (California Legislative Information, 2019).

Before a development permit can be issued, cities and counties must require a site -specific investigation to determine whether a significant hazard exists at the site and, if so, recommend measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. The investigation must be performed by State - licensed engineering geologists and/or civil engineers (California Legislative Information, 2019).

4. California Building Standards Code (Title 24)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is reserved for state regulations that govern the design and construction of buildings, associated facilities, and equipment. These regulations are also known Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils as building standards (reference California Health and Safety Code Section 18909). California Health and Safety Code Section 18902 gives CCR Title 24 the name California Building Standards Code (CBSC) (CBSC, 2019).

The CBSC in CCR Title 24 is published by the California Building Standards Commission and it applies to all building occupancies (see Health and Safety Code Sections 18908 and 18938) throughout the State of California. Cities and counties are required by state law to enforce CCR Title 24 (reference Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17960, 18938(b), and 18948). Cities and counties may adopt ordinances making more restrictive requirements than provided by CCR Title 24, because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Such adoptions and a finding of need statement must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission (Reference Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5) (CBSC, 2019).

5. Porter -Cologne Water Control Act
The Porter -Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter -Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
• That the quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected; • That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason; and
• That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation (SWRCB, 2014).

The Porter -Cologne Act established nine Regional Water Boards (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the State Water Board, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The State Water Board provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews Regional Water Boards decisions. In addition, the State Water Board allocates rights to the use of surface water. The Regional Water Boards have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards have numerous non - point source (NPS) related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management (SWRCB, 2014),
The Regional Water Boards regulate discharges under the Porter -Cologne Act primarily through issuance of NPDES permits for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS discharges. Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) can make their own investigations or may require dischargers to Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L 1 Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils carry out water quality investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter -Cologne Act provides several options for enforcing WDRs and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup and abatement orders, administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions (SWRCB, 2014).

The Porter -Cologne Act also implements many provisions of the Clean Water Act, such as the NPDES permitting program, and requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain the guiding policies of water pollution management in California. In addition, regional water quality control plans (basin plans) have been adopted by each of the Regional Water Boards and get updated as necessary and practical. These plans identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the State and establish water quality objectives to protect these uses. The basin plans also contain implementation, surveillance, and monitoring plans. (SWRCB, 2014) The Project site is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which is within the purview of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana's RWQCB's Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the governing water quality plan for the region.

6. Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
The California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 states:
• No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site[s], including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
• As used in this section, "public lands" means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.

C. Local

1. County of Riverside General Plan
The County of Riverside General Plan identifies goals and policies related to the protection from natural hazards such as earthquakes, fire, flooding, slope failure, and other hazardous conditions in the Safety Element. The Safety Element serves the following functions:
o Develops a framework by which safety considerations are introduced into the land use planning process;
o Facilitates the identification and mitigation of hazards for new development, and thus strengthens existing codes, project review, and permitting processes; o Presents policies directed at identifying and reducing hazards in existing development; o Strengthens earthquake, flood, inundation, and wildland fire preparedness planning and post - disaster reconstruction policies.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007