Beaumont City Council
April 16, 2024

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Section XVII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to tribal resources if the Project or any Project -related component would:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.18.E 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 18-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground -disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100 -foot perimeter of the discovery. The area shall be protected; project personnel/observers will be restricted. The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254(r), the sheriff -coroner, parties, and lead agencies will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial.

4.18.7 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
As discussed in Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Assessment (Technical Appendix D), BFSA requested a review of the Sacred Lands Files (SLF) by the NAHC in March of 2019 to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within one mile of the project. The NAHC SLF search did not indicate the presence of any sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the search radius.

Additionally, as discussed EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, all previously recorded cultural resources were evaluated as not significant and ineligible for listing on the CRHR. There are no significant historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 located within the Project site. However, because multiple resources have been identified on the Project site, and due to heavy vegetation during the survey, there remains the potential that previously unobserved resources may exist.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

1. Native American Consultation
As previously stated, the City of Beaumont sent notification to the Native American tribes with traditional or cultural affiliation to the area that previously requested consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 requirements. The City of Beaumont sent notification letters of the Project to the Native American tribes listed in Section 4.18.2.

Of the 10 tribes that were sent notifications letters, 3 requested government -to -government consultation: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and Soboba Band of Mission Indians. In a letter dated December 15, 2020, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians stated that they were unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the Project but would like to be notified in the event cultural resources are discovered during development.

The City submitted the Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Assessment (Technical Appendix D) to three tribes that requested consultation and conducted telephone consultations with Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on March 2, 2021 and Morongo Band of Mission Indians on February 2, 2021. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Morongo Band of Missions Indians requested revisions to the cultural resources assessment and mitigation, which were incorporated into Technical Appendix D. To date the Soboba Band of Mission Indians have not responded to schedule consultation.

Based on information provided in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR and consultation with Native American tribes, there is potential that buried tribal cultural resources could be encountered during ground -disturbing activities. Accordingly, there is a potential for significant impacts to occur during grading.

4.18.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development projects in the vicinity of the Project site that are in the western area of Riverside County and the traditional use of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Santa Rosa band of Cahuilla Indians, Ramona band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, and Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians.

As noted earlier in this section, the City of Beaumont conducted Native American consultation with potentially culturally affiliated tribes, as required by AB 52 and SB 18. Although other development projects in the traditional use area for the above listed culturally affiliated tribes may impact significant tribal cultural resources, impacts are generally site -specific resulting from ground disturbing activities; however, discovery of resources could contribute knowledge regarding other resources farther away from the Project site. Therefore, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources have the potential to occur.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, Project impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Other projects will also be required to comply with all applicable existing regulations, procedures, and policies that are intended to address tribal cultural resources, including consultation under SB 18 and/or AB 52. Other development projects will also implement mitigation measures similar to Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2 to ensure impacts to tribal cultural resources are fully mitigated to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and 4.5-2, the Project would not to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact associated with the significance of a tribal cultural resource or a collection of resources pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Therefore, with mitigation, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources.

4.18.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Potentially Significant Direct and Cumulative Impact. Although no tribal cultural resources are known to occur within the Project's impact limits, implementation of the Project has the potential cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources that may be buried beneath the site's surface or in on -site vegetation.

4.18.10 MITIGATION
Refer to Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2 in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

4.18.11 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2, would ensure that grading and other ground -disturbing activities during construction are monitored by a qualified archaeologist as well as Native American monitors. The mitigation measures further require the proper treatment of any resources that may be uncovered, and the avoidance of disturbance in areas where potential resources are uncovered. With implementation of the required mitigation measures, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and potential Project and cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ ❑
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section addresses the topics of water service and supply, wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater conveyance facilities, and solid waste collection and disposal. The information concerning water supplies and the Project's estimated water demand is based primarily on information contained in the Project Specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA), dated June 28, 2020 (Revised April 13, 2021)prepared by Charles Marr Consulting and Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc (CMC & PACE, 2021) and Addendum #1 WSA dated April 8, 2022 prepared by Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc (PACE, 2022). A copy of the WSA is provided as Technical Appendix L to this EIR.

The analysis contained in this section is also based in part on information obtained from the Project's Preliminary Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study (PECW, 2021a) (EIR Technical Appendix II), the City of Beaumont General Plan (City of Beaumont, 2020a), and the City of Beaumont Municipal Code (City of Beaumont, 2021).

4.19.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Water Service
The Project site is in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the Beaumont/Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD), which provides water service for the City of Beaumont (City), the SOI, and unincorporated community of Cherry Valley (BCVWD, 2017, Table 3-3). The Project site will be annexed into the BCVWD service area. In December 2015, BCVWD provided potable and non -potable water service to about 16,799 active accounts through 16,985 connections. In 2015, the BCVWD's average daily demand was 9.2 million gallons per day (mgd), with a maximum day of 15.3 mgd (BCVWD, 2017, p. 3-1). Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped and does not generate any demand for water.

8. Water Supply

1. Groundwater
BCVWD provides potable water from two local groundwater sources: Edgar Canyon and the Beaumont Basin. The BCVWD currently owns and operates a total of 24 groundwater wells of which only 20 are used. Three of the BCVWD's 20 wells have their capacity shared with the City of Banning.

The 20 wells have a total production capability of approximately 27.3 million gallons per day, not including the capacity shared with Banning. Thirteen of the BCVWD's 24 wells are in Edgar Canyon; eleven are in the Beaumont Basin.

The groundwater aquifer in the Edgar Canyon primarily occurs in the shallower, younger, and older alluvial valleys and within the rock fractures beneath the alluvium. Groundwater levels vary from a few feet below ground surface (bgs) to about 200 feet bgs. The wells in Edgar Canyon produced approximately 15 to 20% of the total annual supply, with the remainder pumped from the wells in the Beaumont Basin. The groundwater within the Beaumont Basin primarily occurs in the older alluvium and the San Timoteo Formation. Groundwater levels in the Beaumont Basin range from approximately 160 feet bgs to 600 feet bgs. The Beaumont Basin is adjudicated and managed by the Beaumont Basin Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Watermaster, which is a five -member committee consisting of representatives from the Cities of Banning and Beaumont, BCVWD, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and South Mesa Water Company. BCVWD's total well capacity as of 2015, is approximately 27.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and current maximum customer demand for water is approximately 21.6 mgd (BCVWD, 2021).

2. Surface Water
BCVWD does not use local surface water directly but does have two active surface water diversions in Edgar Canyon that are in the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights database (S014351, S014352). Diversion Number S014351 is in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 2 Township 2 south, Range 1 west of the San Bernardino Base Meridian. This location is approximately 1,200 feet downstream of the United States Geological Survey gauging station in Little San Gorgonio Creek, near the upper end of BCVWD's property. Diversion Number S014352 is in the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 2 south, Range 1 west of the San Bernardino Base Meridian. This location is upstream of the existing percolation ponds at the mouth of Edgar Canyon. These diversions direct surface flows in Little San Gorgonio Creek into a series of percolation ponds in Edgar Canyon which recharge the shallow aquifers in Edgar Canyon (BCVWD, 2021).

3. Imported Water and Recharge Facilities
Imported water is available to the BCVWD from the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA), which is a wholesale water supplier and one of 29 Contractors to the State Water Project (SWP).

BCVWD purchases imported SWP water for the purpose of groundwater recharge. SGPWA has a maximum annual allotment of 17,300 acre-feet per year (AFY) of SWP water; however, Contractors rarely received all their allotment. As of May 22, 2020, the SWP anticipated to deliver 20% of required supplies in 2020. In 2018, BCVWD recharged 12,121 AF of SWP water into the Beaumont Basin (City of Beaumont, 2020b).

In approximately 2001, BCVWD began investigating an 80 -acre site on the east side of Beaumont Avenue between Brookside Avenue and Cherry Valley Boulevard as a location for a facility to recharge captured storm flow and imported water. After extensive hydrogeologic investigations, including pilot testing, the BCVWD purchased the site (known as the Oda Property) and developed Phase 1 of the recharge facility on the westerly half of the site. The Phase 1 facilities were completed and went online in late summer 2006. Phase 2 of the recharge facility was completed in 2014. The 80 -acre site has excellent recharge capabilities with long-term percolation rates around 7 to 10 acre-ft/acre/day, with proper maintenance (BCVWD, 2021).

BCVWD completed construction of a 24 -inch pipeline from the SGPWA turnout on East Branch Extension (EBX) of the State Water Project to BCVWD's recharge facilities in 2006. A metering station was installed at the turnout at Noble Creek and Vineland Avenue and BCVWD began taking imported water deliveries from SGPWA for recharge in September of 2006. In 2019, the EBX facility was expanded to allow for additional imported water capacity. Since its operation in 2006 through the end of 2020, nearly 108,900 acre -ft (about 35.5 billion gallons) of imported water have been recharged.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems As of the end of 2020, BCVWD has 39,750 acre -ft "banked" in the Beaumont Basin; this is more than a three-year supply. BCVWD is also currently working with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to complete the MDP Line 16 Project, which will allow BCVWD to capture and recharge stormwater at the Phase 2 recharge facilities. The expected volume of stormwater able to be recharged is approximately 250 AFY. Construction is expected to begin in 2021 and be completed by Fall 2022 (BCVWD, 2021).

C. Wastewater Service and Treatment
The City controls and managers its sewer collection, conveyance, and treatment system. All sewage generated within the City, as well as some unincorporated areas in Cherry Valley, are treated at the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Built in 1929, the City Wastewater Treatment plant has a permitted capacity of 4.0 mgd of effluent and receives an average daily flow of approximately 3.1 mgd (City of Beaumont, 2020a, p. 119; City of Beaumont, 2020b). Additionally, the facility has capacity to deliver 6 mgd of recycled water. The City is obligated to discharge a minimum of 1.8 mgd of treated effluent from the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 to Cooper's Creek, a tributary to San Timoteo Creek (Order No. RS -2015-0026).

In November 2020, the City completed its upgrading and expanding of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 capacity. With implementation of the upgrade and expansion, the City increased the permitted capacity from 4.0 mgd to 6.0 mgd, which is anticipated to adequately treat flows generated over the next 20 years.

Recycled water from BCVWD is from the City of Beaumont's wastewater treatment facility. As of 2021, BCVWD has over 44 miles of non -potable (recycled) water transmission and distribution system in place. The backbone transmission system forms a loop around the City and is comprised of primarily 24 -inch diameter cement mortar lined -ductile iron pipe. The system includes a two -million -gallon recycled water reservoir. The nearest recycled water line to the Project site is located along Oak Valley Parkway adjacent to the Golf Club at Tukwet Canyon. The non -potable water system consists of 3 (potentially 4 in the future) pressure zones: 2400, 2600, 2800, and 3000. The 3000 Non -potable Zone will likely not be operational for several years (if ever) as most of the current demand is in the other zones; BCWVD is in the process of analyzing the feasibility of a 3000 -pressure zone (BCVWD, 2021).

D. Stormwater Conveyance Facilities
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Master Drainage Plan addresses the current and future drainage needs of a given community. The boundary of the plan usually follows regional watershed limits. Proposed facilities may include channels, storm drains, levees, basins, dams, wetlands or any other conveyance capable of economically relieving flooding problems within the plan area. The plan includes an estimate of facility capacity, sizes and costs. The 1983 Beaumont Master Drainage Plan encompasses approximately 34 square miles of incorporated and unincorporated land in and around the City, not including the Project site.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems At the time this EIR was prepared, the BCVWD and RCFCWCD were jointly working on a Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAEWPA) Grant Project to design and construct the Beaumont MDP- Line 16 stormwater capture project, also known as the Grand Avenue Storm Drain in Cherry Valley which will be located along Grand Avenue beginning at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Winesap Avenue heading west along the right of way of Grand Avenue until it reaches BCVWD's Noble Creek Recharge Facility. An estimated 200 to 230 AFY can be captured with the MDP-Line 16 project.

Under existing conditions, the Project site is undeveloped and contains a network of trails and rolling hills to the south. Stormwater originating from the site drains to the northeast towards CA -60 to 16 existing Caltrans maintained culverts (1-16) via their respective tributary areas (drainage areas 100 thru 1600). Tributaries for these culverts extend to the ridgelines of the Badlands foothills along the southern and northern borders; the development on the eastern border provides a ridgeline for the eastern edge of the Project site. The northwestern most culvert is an existing 54 -inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and the southeastern most culvert is a double 48 -inch CMP adjacent to the CA -60 off - ramp for Jack Rabbit Trail. The tributaries feature steep, eroded hillside grades and natural depressed grasslands at the entrances of the culverts. These depressed areas provide natural detention areas for the culverts before the runoff confluences with San Timoteo Creek on the northern side of CA -60.

Tributary areas and 100 -year peak flow rates were determined at each of the culverts. Table 4.19-1, Existing 100 -Year Peak Flow Rate, summarizes the location, tributary area, 100 -year peak flow rate, and pipe sizes on site.

Table 4.19-1 Existing 100 -Year Peak Flow Rate
Area ID
Acreage
Peak Runoff (cfs)
Culvert Size (in)
Culvert Capacity
(cfs)
100
140.0
376.7
54 CMP*
483.44**
200

2.6 9.0
30 CMP*
300

9.3 28.4
30 CMP

96.0 400

16.9 54.5
36 CMP
154.1
500

5.4 16.4
30 CMP

71.8 600

53.9 160.5
42 CMP
132.0
700

4.4 14.3
24 CMP

59.5 800

7.0 22.6
24 CMP

51.5 900

14.1 49.7
24 CMP

38.7 1000

0.5 2.2
24 CMP

77.8 1100

79.1 212.6
48 CMP

79.2 1200

3.0 10.5
24 CMP

54.1 1300

65.7 191.2
36 CMP
138.8
1400

4.7 8.7
36 CMP
118.6
1500

25.8 88.4
36 CMP
119.6
1600

90.5 234.7
2 - 48 CMP
476.9
Total
522.9
1,480.4
Source: (PECW, 2021a)
* Existing culverts with no available data to use to calculate the estimated capacity. Existing culverts to be replaced by a 20'x20' RCB per Caltrans 60 Freeway widening project. Culvert capacity calculations based on Caltrans drainage Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

ME
EL
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems plans (slope & pipe size). See selected Caltrans Drainage plan sheets in Appendix E of Technical Appendix I2 of this EIR).
** Proposed 20'x20' RCB culvert capacity calculated with a conservative assumed depth of 2 ft which is 10% of the total inside height of the culvert. The actual physical capacity of the culvert far exceeds the assumption and is a function of the depth of flow. However, it is unlikely that the depth of flow will exceed 25% of the total inside height.

Caltrans is current conducting a project to widen the SR -60. The Caltrans project includes the replacement of two culverts and the extension of several other culverts which is occurring independently of the Project. The Caltrans project included the replacement of two culverts (Area ID 100 and 200) and the extension of several other culverts. The widening project will only affect the first five western culverts. Where runoff exceeds the calculated culvert capacity, the excess runoff ponds within the natural detention areas adjacent to the culvert invert.

E. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
The City is within the service area of the Lamb Canyon Landfill, located just south of the City and operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR). Currently, Waste Management, Inc. provides waste collection and disposal services for residences and businesses within the City.

Based on data reported to the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2018, the City generated 39,877 tons of solid waste requiring disposal. A majority (27,887 tons) of the City's solid waste, in 2018, was disposed at the Lamb Canyon Landfill, followed by disposal of waste at the El Sobrante Landfill (6,166 tons), and Badlands Landfill (3,918 tons). The remaining 1,906 tons of City waste generated in 2018 was disposed of at the following locations: Antelope Valley Public Landfill, Azusa Landfill, Buttonwillow Landfill, Bowerman Landfill, Holloway Landfill, Lancaster Landfill, Mid -Valley Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Simi Valley Landfill. A description of the active Riverside County Landfills is provided below (CalRecycle, 2021a). • Lamb Canyon Landfill — Located approximately 4.2 miles southeast of the Project site in City, the Lamb Canyon Landfill is the nearest landfill to the Project site at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road. The landfill is operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR). The landfill has a permitted tonnage of 5,000 tons per day (tpd), plus 500 tpd for beneficial reuse, 19,242,950 cy of capacity remaining as of January 2015, and has an estimated closure date of April 2029. It should be noted that the Lamb Canyon Landfill is currently undergoing a capacity to extend the life of the facility. • Badlands Landfill — Located approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the Project site in the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue. The landfill is operated by the RCDWR. The landfill has permitted tonnage of 4,800 tpd, has a remaining capacity of 15,748,799 cy as of January 2015, and has an estimated closure date of January 2022. • El Sobrante Landfill — Located approximately 27 miles southwest of the Project site in the City of Corona at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill is privately owned and operated Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems under an agreement with Riverside County. The landfill has a permitted tonnage of 16,054 tpd, has a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 cy as of April 2018, and has an estimated closure date of January 2051.
• Blythe Landfill — Located approximately 140 miles southeast of the Project site in the community of Ripley at 1000 Midland Road. The landfill is operated by RCDWR. The landfill has a permitted tonnage of 400 tpd. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 3,834,470 cy as of May 2016 and has an estimated closure date of August 2047. • Desert Center Landfill — Located approximately 95 miles southeast of the Project site in the community of Desert Center at 17-991 Kaiser Road. The landfill is operated by RCDWR and is only open two days per year. The landfill has a permitted tonnage of 60 tpd, has a remaining capacity of 127,414 cy as of November 2018, and has an estimated closure date of August 2107.
• Oasis Landfill — Located approximately 65 miles southeast of the Project site in the community of Oasis at 84-505 84th Avenue. The landfill is operated by RCDWR. The landfill has a permitted tonnage of 400 tpd has a remaining capacity of 433,779 cy as of October 2012, and has an estimated closure date of September 2055.

Under existing conditions, there are no portable or temporary buildings on the Project site, and the site does not generate solid or liquid wastes that require landfill disposal. Currently, Waste Management, Inc. provides waste collection and disposal services for residences and business within the City of Beaumont. Disposal of the municipal waste including construction waste within the City of Beaumont General Plan Area is ultimately the responsibility of the County of Riverside, and the County will direct the waste to any of the available disposal sites (City of Beaumont, 2020b, pp. 5.18-16). The nearest landfill to the Project site is the Lamb Canyon Landfill, which is located approximately 4.2 miles southeast of the Project site and managed by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR); however, solid waste generated by the City will be disposed of at several active landfills with adequate capacity. Solid waste generated under City General Plan buildout conditions represents less than 3% of the County's total waste stream, and is within the range of disposal estimates reflected in the area wide solid waste management and disposal plans developed by the RCWMD (City of Beaumont, 2020a, p. 156).

F. Dry Utilities

1. Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to a large majority of southern and central California, including the City and its SOI. SCE serves 180 cities across 50,000 square miles of service area, encompassing approximately five million customers. SCE derives its electricity from a variety of sources; a majority of electrical power comes from eligible renewables and natural gas (City of Beaumont, 2020b).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
MOEnvironmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems 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, followed by 34.6% for residential uses, 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.

2. Natural Gas
The City and SOI are within the service area of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for the provision of natural gas at residences and businesses. SoCalGas provides natural gas to over 500 communities over a 24,000 square mile service area. (City of Beaumont, 2020b) 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 4.19-2, 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 4.19-2 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, 2021c, 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.

3. Telecommunications
Several companies provide telecommunication services, including fiber optic and broadband internet, to residences and businesses throughout the City. Currently, the two largest provides in the City include Frontier Communications and Spectrum (Charter Communications).

4.19.2 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 utilities and service systems.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations related to utilities and service systems.

A. Federal

1. Water Supply Regulations
❑ 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 significantly 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 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).
❑ Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources. The Act authorizes EPA to establish minimum standards to protect tap water and requires all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with these primary (health -related) standards. The 1996 amendments to SDWA require that EPA consider a detailed risk and cost assessment, and best available peer -reviewed science, when developing these standards. State governments, which can be approved to implement these rules for EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary standards (nuisance -related). Under the Act, EPA also establishes minimum standards for state programs to protect underground sources of drinking water from endangerment by underground injection of fluids (EPA, 2017a).

2. Solid Waste Regulations
❑ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The RCRA is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. The US EPA oversees waste management regulation pursuant to Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Under RCRA, however, states are authorized to carry out many of the functions of the federal law through their own hazardous waste programs and laws, as long as they are at least as stringent (or more so) than the federal regulations. Thus, CalRecycle manages the State's Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems California's solid waste and hazardous materials programs pursuant to U.S. EPA approval. Refer to Section 4.19.3B.2 for discussion on State regulations on solid waste.

B. State

1. Water Supply Regulations
❑ Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act was established to ensure adequate water supplies are available for future uses. To promote the conservation and efficient use of water, the Act requires local agencies to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance. When such an ordinance had not been adopted, a finding as to why (based on the climatic, geologic, or topographical conditions) such an ordinance is not necessary, must be adopted. In the absence of such an ordinance or findings, the policies and requirements contained in the "model" ordinance drafted by the State of California shall apply within the affected jurisdiction.
❑ Water Recycling in Landscaping Act
In 2000, Senate Bill 2095 (Water Recycling in Landscaping Act) was approved by Governor Davis requiring any local public or private entity that produces recycled water and determines that within 10 years it will provide recycled water within the boundaries of a local agency, to notify the local agency of that fact. In turn, local agencies are required to adopt and enforce within 180 days a specified recycled water ordinance, unless the local agency adopted a recycled water ordinance or other regulation requiring the use of recycled water in its jurisdiction prior to January 1, 2001 (California Legislative Info, n.d.).
❑ Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) was proposed and adopted to ensure that water planning is conducted at the local level, as the State of California recognized that two water agencies in the same region could have very different impacts from a drought. The UWMP Act requires water agencies to develop Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) over a 20 -year planning horizon, and further required UWMPs to be updated every five years. UWMPs are exempt from compliance with CEQA (DWR, 2016, p. 1-2).

The UWMPs provide a framework for long term water planning and inform the public of a supplier's plans for long-term resource planning that ensures adequate water supplies for existing and future demands. This part of the California Water Code (CWC) requires urban water suppliers to report, describe, and evaluate:
• Water deliveries and uses;
• Water supply sources;
• Efficient water uses;
• Demand management measures; and
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems • Water shortage contingency planning (DWR, 2016, p. 1-3).

The UWMP Act has been modified over the years in response to the State's water shortages, droughts, and other factors. A significant amendment was made in 2009, after the drought of 2007-2009 and as a result of the governor's call for a statewide 20% reduction in urban water use by the year 2020. This was the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SB X7-7. This Act required agencies to establish water use targets for 2015 and 2020 that would result in statewide savings of 20% by 2020.

Beginning in 2016, retail water suppliers were required to comply with the water conservation requirements in SB X7-7 in order to be eligible for State water grants or loans. Retail water agencies are required to set targets and track progress toward decreasing daily per capita urban water use in their service area, which will assist the State in meeting its 20% reduction goal by 2020 (DWR, 2016, p. 1- 2).
❑ California Senate Bill (SB) 610
The California Water Code (Water Code) Sections 10910 through 10915 were amended by the enactment of SB 610 in 2002. SB 610 requires preparation of a water supply assessment for projects of specified sizes of whether available water supplies are sufficient to serve the demand generated by a proposed project, as well as the reasonably foreseeable cumulative demand in the region over the next 20 years under average normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. Under SB 610, water assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code 10912 [a]) subject to CEQA (DWR, 2003). For the purposes of SB 610, "project" means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 -dwelling unit project. (DWR, 2003) Because the Project proposes to develop a business establishment more than 500,000 s.f. of floor space, a water supply assessment was required and is included in Technical Appendix L of this EIR.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ❑ California Water Code Section 10610 et seq. (Senate Bill 901) Signed into law on October 16, 1995, SB 901 required every urban water supplier to identify as part of its urban water management plan, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over a prescribed 5 -year period. The code requires the water service purveyor to assess the projected water demand associated with a proposed project under environmental review. Later provisions of SB 901 required compliance in the event that the proposed Project involved the adoption of a specific plan, amendment to, or revision of the land use element of a general plan or specific plan that would result in a net increase in the state population density. Upon completion of the water assessment, cities and counties may agree or disagree with the conclusions of the water service purveyors, but cannot approve projects in the face of documented water shortfalls without first making certain findings. ❑ Executive Order B-29-15
Executive Order (EO) B-29-15 ordered the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to impose restrictions to achieve a 25% reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016; directed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to lead a statewide initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes; and directed the California Energy Commission to implement a statewide appliance rebate program to provide monetary incentives for the replacement of inefficient household devices (DWR, 2020b). Subsequent EOs regarding water conservation that has been signed in the following years are discussed below.
❑ Executive Order B-37-16
Signed on May 9, 2016, EO B-37-16 established a new water use efficiency framework for California.

The order bolstered the state's drought resilience and preparedness by establishing longer -term water conservation measures that include permanent monthly water use reporting, new urban water use targets, reducing system leaks and eliminating clearly wasteful practices, strengthening urban drought contingency plans, and improving agricultural water management and drought plans (DWR, 2020b). ❑ Executive Order B-40-17
Signed on April 7, 2017, EO B-40-17 ended the drought state of emergency in all California counties except Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne, where emergency drinking water projects will continue to help address diminished groundwater supplies. It maintains water reporting requirements and prohibitions on wasteful practices. The order was built on actions taken in Executive Order B-37-16, which remains in effect. In a related action, state agencies, including the Depaitiiient of Water Resources (DWR), released a plan to continue making water conservation a way of life (DWR, 2020b). ❑ Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established a new structure for managing California's groundwater resources at a local level by local agencies. SGMA required, by June 30, 2017, the formation of locally -controlled groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) in the State's high- and medium -priority groundwater basins and subbasins (basins). A GSA is responsible for Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems developing and implementing a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to meet the sustainability goal of the basin to ensure that it is operated within its sustainable yield, without causing undesirable results.

The GSP Emergency Regulations for evaluating GSPs, the implementation of GSPs, and coordination agreements were adopted by DWR and approved by the California Water Commission on May 18, 2016 (DWR, 2017b).

In 2016, the California Legislature made moderate amendments to the SGMA, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. Amendments to the SGMA included the regulations that were passed under SB

13. SB 13 changed the Department of Water Resources' role with respect to reviewing and posting GSA formation notices and the notice of intent provision related to GSA formation.

2. Solid Waste Regulations
❑ California Solid Waste Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939, 1989) The Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) established an integrated waste management hierarchy to guide the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and local agencies in implementation, in order of priority: (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal (it should be noted that the CIWMB no longer exists, and its duties have been assumed by CalRecycle). As part of the IWMA, the CIWMB was given a purpose to mandate the reduction of disposed waste (CalRecycle, 2018a). The IWMA also required:
• The establishment of a task force to coordinate the development of city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and a countywide siting element. • Each city, by July 1, 1991, to prepare, adopt and submit a SRRE to the county which includes the following components: waste characterization; source reduction; recycling; composting; solid waste facility capacity; education and public information; funding; special waste (asbestos, sewage sludge, etc.); and household hazardous waste. • Each county, by January 1, 1991, to prepare a SRRE for its unincorporated area, with the same components described above, and a countywide siting element, specifying areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity for solid waste generated in the jurisdiction which cannot be reduced or recycled for a 15 -year period. • Each county to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Board an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP), which includes all the elements described above. • Each city or county plan to include an implementation schedule which shows: diversion of 25% of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; and, diversion of 50% of all solid waste by January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. • The CIWMB to review the implementation of each SRRE at least once every two years.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems • The IWMA required the CIWMB, in conjunction with an inspection conducted by a Lead Enforcement Agency (LEA), to conduct at least one inspection per year of each solid waste facility in the state.

Additionally, the IWMA established a comprehensive statewide system of permitting, inspections, enforcement, and maintenance for solid waste facilities (CalRecycle, 2018a). ❑ Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (AB 1327)
The Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (WRRA) required the CIWMB to approve a model ordinance for adoption by any local government for the transfer, receipt, storage, and loading of recyclable materials in development projects by March 1, 1993. The WRRA also required local agencies to adopt a local ordinance by September 1, 1993 or allow the model ordinance to take effect. The WRRA requires all development projects that are commercial, industrial, institutional, or marina in nature and where solid waste is collected and loaded, to provide an adequate area for collecting and loading recyclable materials over the lifetime of the project. The area is required to be provided before building permits are issued (CalRecycle, 2018b).
❑ Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program (AB 341)
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 [Chesbro, AB 341]) directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. CalRecycle initiated formal rulemaking with a 45 -day comment period beginning Oct. 28, 2011. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012. AB -341 was designed to help meet California's recycling goal of 75% by the year 2020. AB 341 requires all commercial businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. In addition, multi -family apartments with five or more units are also required to form a recycling program (CalRecycle, 2021b).
❑ 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green; Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations)
CALGreen became effective January 1, 2020, and is applicable to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout the State of California (including residential structures and elementary schools). CALGreen Section 5.408.3 requires that 100% of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed.

3. Energy Conservation Regulations
❑ California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 California Code of Regulations 6)
The Building Energy Efficiency Standards were first adopted in 1976 and have been updated periodically since then as directed by statute. In 1975 the Department of Housing and Community Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Development adopted rudimentary energy conservation standards under their State Housing Law authority that were a precursor to the first generation of the Standards. However, the Warren-Alquist Act was passed one year earlier with explicit direction to the Energy Commission (formally titled the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission) to adopt and implement the Standards. The Energy Commission's statute created separate authority and specific direction regarding what the Standards are to address, what criteria are to be met in developing the Standards, and what implementation tools, aids, and technical assistance are to be provided (CEC, 2015).

The Standards contain energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, additions to existing buildings, and alterations to existing buildings.

Public Resources Code Sections 25402 subdivisions (a) -(b) and 25402.1 emphasize the importance of building design and construction flexibility by requiring the Energy Commission to establish performance standards, in the form of an "energy budget" in terms of the energy consumption per square foot of floor space. For this reason, the Standards include both a prescriptive option, allowing builders to comply by using methods known to be efficient, and a performance option, allowing builders complete freedom in their designs provided the building achieves the same overall efficiency as an equivalent building using the prescriptive option. Reference appendices are adopted along with the Standards that contain data and other information that helps builders comply with the Standards (CEC, 2015).

The 2016 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focused on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings.

The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards include improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting. The most significant efficiency improvements to the nonresidential Standards include alignment with the ASHRAE 90.1 2013 national standards. New efficiency requirements for elevators and direct digital controls are included in the nonresidential Standards. The 2016 Standards also include changes made throughout all its sections to improve the clarity, consistency, and readability of the regulatory language (CEC, 2015).

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.

Public Resources Code Section 25402.1 also requires the Energy Commission to support the performance standards with compliance tools for builders and building designers. The Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual adopted by regulation as an appendix of the Standards establishes requirements for input, output, and calculational uniformity in the computer programs used to demonstrate compliance with the Standards. From this, the Energy Commission develops and makes publicly available free, public domain building modeling software in order to enable compliance based Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EU Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems on modeling of building efficiency and performance The ACM Approval Manual also includes provisions for private firms seeking to develop compliance software for approval by the Energy Commission, which further encourages flexibility and innovation. (CEC, 2015) ❑ California Solar Rights and Solar Shade Control Acts
The Solar Rights Act sets parameters for establishing solar easements, prohibits ordinances and private covenants which restrict solar systems, and requires communities to consider passive solar and natural heating and cooling opportunities in new construction. This Act is applicable to all California cities and counties. California's solar access laws appear in the state's Civil, Government, Health and Safety, and Public Resources Codes. California Public Resources Code Section 25980 sets forth the Solar Shade Control Act, which encourages the use of trees and other natural shading except in cases where the shading may interfere with the use of active and passive solar systems.

C. Regional

1. Beaumont Basin Watermaster
The Beaumont Basin Watermaster consists of several public entities including the City, and was formed on February 2, 2004, pursuant to a Stipulated Judgment to adjudicate and manage groundwater rights in the Beaumont Groundwater Basin. The Watermaster has the authority and responsibility to administer the adjudicated water rights within the Beaumont Basin. The Watermaster committee consists of representatives from the cities of Banning and Beaumont, the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and South Mesa Water Company. The Beaumont Basin encompasses approximately 26 square miles, has a current safe yield of approximately 8,650 acre-feet, a total storage capacity of up to 200,000 acre-feet for conjunctive use.

2. BCVWD UWMP
BCVWD has prepared a 2020 UWMP as required by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for all urban water suppliers serving more than 3,000 customers or 3,000 acre-feet (acre -ft) of water annually within the State of California. The 2020 UWMP follows California state requirements as defined in the California Water Code and in the Urban Water Management Guidebook 2020 (DWR, 2021). BCVWD's 2020 UWMP was adopted by the Board of Directors on August 26, 2021 and submitted to DWR after adoption (BCVWD, 2021).

As a companion to the 2020 UWMP and required by State law, BCVWD prepared and approved the 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as a strategic planning process to prepare for and respond to water shortages. As part of this new requirement, BCVWD will assess each year's water supplies to determine if there was a water volume shortage for that year. Based on the water shortage, BCVWD will implement one of six water conservation levels, as defined in the BCVWD's WSCP, to encourage or require water conservation among its service area (PACE, 2022).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

3. Master Drainage Plan
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) adopted the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP). Many cities within the RCFCWCD boundary that have an MDP will also establish an Area Drainage Plan (ADP), which is the financing mechanism used to offset taxpayer costs for proposed drainage facilities. According to the ADP, fees to support construction of MDP facilities are assessed on new development within the plan area. Currently, an ADP has not been established for the City.

D. Local

1. City of Beaumont General Plan
The General Plan identifies goals related to utilities and service systems throughout its elements. 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. The specific General Plan policies related to utilities and service system that are relevant to the Project are as follows.

Goal 7.3: Buildings and landscapes promote water conservation, efficiency, and the increased use of recycled water
Policy 7.3.6: Encourage innovative water recycling techniques, such as rainwater capture, use of cisterns, and installation of greywater systems.

Goal 7.6: A zero -waste program that increases recycling and reduces waste sent to the landfill.

Policy 7.6.1: Encourage new construction and additions to avoid "Red List" materials and chemicals.' Goal 7.7: Provide for a clean and healthy community through an effective solid waste collection and disposal system.

Policy 7.7.3: Require businesses (including public entities) that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, or a multifamily residential dwelling of five units or more, to arrange for recycling services.

Goal 7.8: City-wide access to high -quality energy utility and telecommunication services.

Policy 7.8.1: Ensure that adequate utility and telecommunication infrastructure support future development.

2. City of Beaumont Municipal Code
The City of Beaumont Municipal Code identifies polices related to utilities and service systems. The specific Municipal Code policies that are relevant to the Project are as follows. 1 The "Red List" includes the worst types of materials and chemicals used in the building industry that are harmful to humans and the environment. For a list of material included on the "Red List," see: https://living- future.org/declare/declare-about/red-list/
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Chapter 8.12 — Solid Waste Management. This Chapter establishes mandatory solid waste collection in the City for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the City's residents and to carefully control the collection and disposal of solid waste so that the reductions required by Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq. (AB 939) can be planned for an accurately measured.

Chapter 8.14 — Mandatory Recycling Requirements for Commercial Facilities. This Chapter establishes requirements for the recycling of recyclable materials generated from commercial facilities pursuant to AB 1327. These requirements are intended to increase the diversion of recyclable materials from landfills, conserve capacity and extend the useful life of landfills utilized by the City, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and avoid the potential financial and other consequences to the City of failing to meet State law diversion requirements.

Chapter 13.04 — Sewage Discharges. This Chapter restricts the types of discharges allowed in the sanitary sewer system.

Chapter 13.08 — Sewer System. Establishes the methods by which sewage will be handled and restricts deposition in any unsanitary manner upon public or private property any human fecal matter, garbage, or other objectionable waste. It is also unlawful to discharge to the ground or to a natural watercourse any sewage, including, but not limited to, domestic or industrial wastewater or other polluted water, in a manner that would create a hazard or nuisance or that would impair the usefulness of groundwater or surface water.

Chapter 13.09 — Regulating Fats, Oils, and Grease (F.O.G.) Management in Food Service Establishments. Demonstrates compliance with the Order No. DWQ 2006-0003 adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in May 2006, mandating implementation of various tasks associated with the City's sanitary sewer systems.

Chapter 13.20 — Pretreatment and Regulation of Wastes. Describes the City's wastewater pretreatment ordinance that identifies and regulates certain facilities that have the potential to discharge undesirable pollutants that may interfere with or damage the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1, and/or pass through untreated into the environment. The ordinance incorporates the National Categorical Pretreatment Standards located in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471. Regulated users can include, but are not limited to industrial facilities, vehicle servicing facilities, water -softening wastes, food processing facilities, medical waste, spent solutions and sludge, and recovered pretreatment wastes. All regulated users are noticed by the City to obtain an individual wastewater discharge permit before connecting to or discharging to the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Each permittee is required to comply with the provisions of the permit. The City may conduct inspections, monitoring, flow metering, sampling, collection of compensation, and enforcement procedures including cease and desist orders and permit revocation.

Chapter 13.24 — Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls. Protects and enhances the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, groundwater, and wetlands in a Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act, the State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the conditions of any NPDES permit applicable to the City. Details regarding the requirements of NPDES permit is discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology, of this EIR.

Section 17.04.083 — Inclusion of Recycling Receptables in Building Design. Establishes that office, commercial and retail, industrial and large-scale residential development projects shall include appropriately -sized receptacles for recyclable materials adjacent to trash containers in all common areas. Signs shall be posted to instruct users as to the proper separation of trash and recyclable materials.

4.19.4 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. Section I of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines requires the following to be evaluated to determine if the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to utilities and service systems:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments;
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
A. Water Facilities
Water service to the Project site would be provided by BCVWD. Water demand associated with the Project would consist of interior plumbing devices (i.e., sinks, toilets, faucets), outdoor landscape irrigation, and various industrial and commercial process systems.

The Project is anticipated to increase water demand in the Project site by 196.7 acre-feet per year (AFY; 175,584 gpd) of which 85.2 AFY is outdoor, non -potable use (BCVWD, 2021). Based on the Project -specific WSA prepared for the Project, BCVWD forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet estimated water demands from Project buildout. Water supply is discussed in detail under Threshold b, below.

The Project site is within BCVWD's 2650 Pressure Zone (PZ). The development of the Project would require construction of new water distribution lines within the Project site's development footprint.

The final design and sizing of on -site facilities would accommodate the anticipated water demand (landscaping, potable, and fire flow) based on the proposed land use. These new water distribution lines would connect to existing facilities that are located within the Project area and within adjacent roadways.

As shown on Figure 3-9, Conceptual Potable Water Plan, the proposed system includes the following facilities: on -site dual potable water lines to create a connection between the 2650 Pressure Zone and 2750 Pressure Zone within the Specific Plan, along with an optional 1.2 MG tank which allows for 960,000 gallons (usable storage). The Project proposes to extend the dual 16 -inch potable water lines from the Hidden Canyon development located 350 feet east of the Project site in 4th Street in the existing right of way to create a hydraulic loop around the development area. The northern potable water line in the northern side of 4th Street, Entertainment Way, and Industrial Way is the primary potable water supply to the Project site from the 5 -MG Hannon Tank (2650 PZ). The southern potable water line in the southern side of 4th Street is an emergency potable water supply from the future 2750- 2650 Pressure -Reducing Valve Station (PRV Station) located along 4th Street. The dual potable water lines in 4th Street connect to the existing dual lines and off -site check valve located within 4th Street at Project's eastern boundary. The two potable water lines along with an off -site check valve allow for back -feeding (flushing) of the 2650 PZ from the 2750-2650 PRV Station, provide redundant daily and emergency service from the 2750 PZ, reduce the potential for stagnant water quality issues, and allow for a future 2650 PZ tank south of CA -60 Freeway to back -feed the 2650 PZ.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems The Project's proposed potable water system would include the following facilities: on -site dual potable water lines to create a connection between the 2650 PZ and 2750 PZ within the Project site and an optional 1.2 -million -gallon tank that will allow for 960,000 gallons of usable storage.

Additionally, the Project would construct an on -site recycled water system supplied by BCVWD.

Recycled water will be used for construction dewatering, irrigation of manufactured and replanted slopes within PA 9, as well as for irrigation of parkway landscaping and irrigation of landscaping within the General Commercial and Industrial land uses (PAs 1-8). The Project would connect a proposed 14 -inch recycled water line that would connect to the existing 14 -inch recycled water line within the adjacent Hidden Canyon development at 4th Street, 350 feet east of the Project site in the existing right of way. Additionally, a proposed 8 -inch water line would branch off from the 14 -inch main line within 4th Street and extend between PAs 7 and 8 to provide irrigation water to the portion of PA 9 on the north side of the Project site.

8. Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Project is anticipated to have a wastewater generation rate of 0.26 million gallons of wastewater per day. The Project would construct a wastewater conveyance system to service the Project site and connect to the City's sanitary system. The Project utilizes a gravity sanitary system. However, due to the grading limitations, the sewer system does not provide gravity flow to the proposed point of connection, which is a 12 -inch PVC line and a sewer manhole, located at the end of the extension of 4th Street 350 feet east of the Project site in 4th Street in the existing right of way. Instead, the gravity system will flow to the proposed sewer lift station located at the northwest corner of PA 5. From there the sewer flow will be conveyed via the proposed Dual Force Main within Industrial Way and Entertainment Avenue, and Jackrabbit Trail towards a connection at 4th Street with an existing 12 - inch gravity sewer line. The lift station shall be designed and limited to the Project's ultimate capacity with no interim condition except potential pump quantity.

The precise alignments and sizing of sewer facilities will be determined at the Plot Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and/or final map stages of Specific Plan implementation. As shown on Figure 3-11, Conceptual Sewer Plan, the Project provides the following sewer improvements:
• Proposed 8 -inch Dual Sewer Force Main within Industrial Way through Entertainment Way to Jack Rabbit Trail to the point of connection at 4th Street. • Connection to the proposed 12 -inch gravity sewer main within 4th Street, 350 feet east of the Project site.
• Proposed 8 -inch gravity sewer lines within Industrial Way. • Lift Station in PA 5.
• Point of connection at 4th Street east of Jack Rabbit Trail.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems The Project's proposed wastewater facilities, including the sewer lift station, would be sized only to accommodate the wastewater generated by the Project. No new or expanded off -site sewer lines are anticipated to serve the Project.

The 0.26 mgd of wastewater generated by the Project would be treated at the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1, which currently has the upgraded capacity to treat 6.0 mgd of effluent. The Project's anticipated wastewater generation represents approximately 4% of the treatment capacity for the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. The Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 has sufficient capacity to treat wastewater generated by the Project in addition to existing commitments. As discussed above, the completed upgrade and expansion of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 is anticipated to adequately treat flows generated over the next 20 years. No new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities not already planned would be required. Impacts would be less than significant.

C. Stormwater Drainage Facilities
As further discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the Project would increase the amount of impervious surface within the Project site. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and shown on Figure 3-12, Conceptual Drainage and Water Quality Plan, the Project would construct an on -site storm drain system. The Project's proposed storm drain system would consist of catch basins, grated inlets, storm drainpipes with sizing varying from 18 -inches to 48 -inches, and four detention basins, each of which provide stormwater treatment and peak flow mitigation for each of their respective tributaries. On -site and some off -site flows would be conveyed within the proposed streets to a series of catch basin and stormwater lines which direct flows to the four on -site detention basins. Detention basins are planned within PAs 4, 5, 6, and 8. It should be noted that the Project's flood protection facilities would be designed in accordance with the requirements of the RCFCWCD with adequate access easements and facilities provided.

The Project's proposed stormwater drainage system is designed to accommodate anticipated stormwater flows to accept 100 -year, 1 -hour storm events from the Project site under developed conditions. The Project's stormwater will flow to the existing culverts, drain to San Timeteo Creek Reach 3, then into the Santa Ana River, and ultimately discharge into the Pacific Ocean. No new or expanded off -site storm drain facilities are required to accommodate runoff from the Project site beyond that proposed as part of the Project.

D. Dry Utilities (Electrical Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications) Construction of the Project would require connections to existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities 350 feet east of the Project site in 4th Street in the existing right of way.

The Project would be served in accordance with the State of California's Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tariffs. As discussed in Section 4.6, Energy, 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 Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems approximately 64.1 billion BTU per day. Similarly, 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. Therefore, the Project's natural gas and electricity consumption would be 0.0002% and 0.0007% of the State's consumption in 2020, respectively. According to the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan, in 2017 the County consumed 89,469,089 therms of natural gas and 2.9 billion kWh of electricity. Therefore, the Project's natural gas and electricity consumption would be 28.78% and 0.89% of the County's consumption in 2017, respectively, and no new or expanded off -site dry utilities are required to serve the Project.

E. Environmental Impacts from Utility and Infrastructure Systems Domestic and recycled water infrastructure, sewer lines, lift station, storm drain infrastructure, and dry utilities would be installed in compliance with the requirements of the respective utility providers, and consistent with final plans approved by the utility providers. Construction activities associated with the proposed utility infrastructure would be within the Project's construction impact area and within the 4th Street right of way 350 feet east of the Project site as shown in Figure 3-7, in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR. The installation of the proposed infrastructure improvements would result in physical environmental impacts; however, these impacts have been included in the analyses of construction -related effects presented throughout this EIR, (e.g., air quality impacts, impacts to biological and cultural resources, water quality impacts, and noise and vibration impacts, etc.). Any applicable Project -specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would address potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of utilities.

Therefore, through consistent implementation of a variety of measures related to construction impacts, no additional impacts related to construction and operation of utility systems would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As previously discussed, the Project site will be annexed into the service area for the BCVWD and the BCVWD is the operator of the public water system that would provide potable water service to the Project site. Due to the total building area (over 500,000 s.f. of floor space) permitted by the Beaumont Point Specific Plan, the Project's water demand is required to be evaluated in a WSA, in accordance with Section 10912 of the California Water Code. A WSA and Amendment #1 WSA (included as EIR Technical Appendices Ll and L2) was prepared by Charles Marr Consulting and Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. (CMC & PACE) for BCVWD to determine whether the Project's water demand was adequately accounted for in the 2015 and 2020 BCVWD UWMPs and if the Project's water demand could have a significant impact on projected water supplies and resources. The results of the WSA are summarized herein.

According to the Project -specific WSA, the City of Beaumont General Plan anticipated that the Project site would be developed with land use with a density of 2,000 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) and Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
MOEnvironmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems have a water demand of 1,092 AFY, which was included in BCVWD's 2015 UWMP. The 2015 BCVWD UWMP concluded that BCVWD had adequate existing and planned water supplies to serve the Project site, existing commitments, and future commitments. The Project's new proposed land uses for the Project site estimates a new density equivalent to 360 EDUs, representing a site density reduction of 82%, and an estimated water demand of 197 AFY of which, 85.2 AFY (approximately 43%) would be used for outdoor, non -potable irrigation purposes.

In September 2021, four months after approval of the WSA, the BCVWD Board of Directors approved the 2020 UWMP, updating BCVWD's 2015 UWMP to be in compliance with State law. Specific to the Project, the 2020 UWMP incorporates the specific change in land use from residential to commercial, reducing the total water demand for the Project from 2,000 EDUs to 360.26 EDUs, a reduction of 82%. Additionally, the 2020 UMWP further defines BCVWD's and City of Beaumont's commitment to using non -potable water, available from the City's upgraded Title 22 recycled water treatment plant and shallow aquifer wells, which are not suitable for direct potable water supply. This is consistent with the approved WSA, which indicated 43.31% of the total demand could be supplied by BCVWD's non -potable water system. This further reduces Project's imported and local groundwater (potable) demand, from 360.26 EDUs to 204.21 EDUs. Therefore, the Project's water demand is accounted for in the 2020 UWMP (BCVWD, 2021).

Water Code Section 10910 (c)(3) states that if the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP, the public water system may incorporate information from that plan in preparing the WSA. The BCVWD 2020 UWMP includes the Project water demands and indicates that the District can meet its service area's water supply requirements under normal, single, and multiple consecutive dry years. Therefore, the WSA concludes that BCVWD has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years through 2045 and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Riverside County Fire Depai tment (RCFD) has a fire flow requirement of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for 4 hours for the Project. As identified in the WSA, the backbone transmission system in the main pressure zones consists primarily of 24 -inch pipes with some 30 -inch pipeline leading to some reservoirs. The bulk of the backbone transmission and distribution pipe is ductile iron with cement mortar lining, installed in the last 10 to 15 years. Small, older distribution lines in the system are gradually being replaced over time with minimum 8 -inch ductile iron pipe. The WSA concluded that the system can provide over 4,000 gpm fire flow; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold c: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? As previously discussed, the City controls and manages its sewer collection, conveyance, and treatment system. Wastewater generated in the City is treated at the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems 1, which currently has a treatment capacity of 4.0 mgd with an average daily flow of 3.1 mgd. As such, the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 has an excess capacity of 0.9 mgd. As discussed under Threshold a of this section, the Project is estimated to generate 0.26 mgd of wastewater requiring treatment. Therefore, the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 has sufficient excess capacity to treat Project -generated wastewater. In November 2020, the City completed its upgrading and expanding of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 capacity, which increases the treatment capacity from 4.0 mgd to 6.0 mgd. The upgrades and expansion to the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 is anticipated to adequately handle anticipated flows over the next 20 years.

Therefore, the City has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the existing commitments and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

1. Construction Impacts
During the Project's construction phases, various types of construction -related waste, primarily consisting of discarded materials and packaging. Based on the anticipated building square footage of 5,331,000 s.f.2 and the US EPA's construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds (lbs.) per s.f. of non-residential uses, approximately 11,5683 tons of waste would be generated during the building construction phase (EPA, 2009, p. 10). The Project's building construction is reasonably expected to occur over a period of approximately 53 months, or 1,586 days (see Table 3-4), which corresponds to approximately 7.3 tons4 of construction waste generated per day during the building construction phase. Additional waste would be expected from infrastructure installation and other Project -related construction activities.

The California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Code, which has been adopted by the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 15.22, Green Building Standards Code), requires that at least 65% of construction debris be diverted from landfills through recycling, reuse, and/or salvage. Non -recyclable demolition debris and construction waste generated by the Project would be disposed at the Lamb Canyon Landfill, which has a permitted tonnage of 5,000 tpd, plus 500 tpd for beneficial reuse, 19,242,950 cy of capacity remaining as of January 2015. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project would require 2.6 tons5 of solid waste to be disposed of at a landfill per day, which represents approximately 0.05%6 of the permitted capacity at the Lamb Canyon Landfill. The remaining 4.7 tons of solid waste would be recycled, reused, and/or salvaged pursuant to CalGreen and the City's Municipal Code Chapter 15.22. As such, the disposal of construction -related solid waste associated 2 246,000 s.f. (General Commercial) + 4,995,000 s.f. (Industrial) + 90,000 s.f. (125 -room hotel) = 5,331,000 s.f. 3 (5,331,000 s.f. x 4.34. lbs/s.f.) x (1 ton/2,0001bs) = —11,568 tons 4 11,568 tons/1,586 days = —7.3 tons/day
5 7.3 tons x 0.35 = — 2.6 tons
6 (2.6 tons/5,000 tons) x 100 = 0.05%
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems with the Project is not anticipated to exceed the permitted capacity of the Lamb Canyon Landfill and impacts would be less than significant.

2. Operational Impacts
Based on a daily waste generation factor of 10.8 tons of solid waste annually per 1,000 square feet of industrial building area, identified in the City of Beaumont General Plan EIR, long-term operation of the Project's industrial buildings would generate approximately 53,946 tons of solid waste per year.

Additionally, based on a daily waste generation factor of 2.4 tons of solid waste annually per 1,000 square feet of commercial building area, identified in the City of Beaumont General Plan, long-term operation of the Project's commercial buildings would generate approximately 806 tons' of solid waste per year. The Project is estimated to generate a total of 54,752 tons of solid waste per year or approximately 150 tons of solid waste per day, which represents approximately 3% of the Lamb Canyon Landfill maximum daily capacity and 3.1% of the Badlands Landfill maximum daily capacity.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply Assembly Bill 341, which requires all commercial businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. The goal is to divert 75% of California's waste stream towards recycling and away from the landfill. Waste Management, Inc. has programs in place to support commercial customer's compliance with AB 241.

As previously discussed, the City is within the service area of the Lamb Canyon Landfill and a majority of the waste generate by the City is taken to the Lamb Canyon Landfill. However, waste generated within the City is also taken to other Riverside County landfills, as well as various landfills throughout the State. Disposal of the municipal waste generated within the City is ultimately the responsibility of Riverside County, and as such, the County directs municipal wastes to any available disposal sites.

This could be accomplished through direct transport to an alternative landfill, or through the construction and operation of a transfer facility. Waste generated under buildout conditions will be directed to landfills with available capacity, as determined by the County. As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the RCDWR ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The 15 -year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year by as part of the annual reporting requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. (City of Beaumont, 2020b, pp. 5.18-36 ) As previously discussed, Riverside County's active landfills currently have adequate capacity to serve the Project. Therefore, the implementation of the Project is not anticipated to exceed the capacities of existing landfill facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold e: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport 7 (2.4 tons/1000) x 336,000 s.f. (246,000 s.f. [General Commercial] + 90,000 s.f. [125 -room hotel]) = 806.4 tons Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems of solid waste. The Project would be required to coordinate with Waste Management, Inc. to develop a collection program for recyclables, such as paper, plastics, glass, and aluminum, in accordance with local and State programs, including AB 341, Mandatory Commercial Recycling, and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable practices enacted by the City under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 and Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008. State law requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The diversion goal has been increased to 75% by 2020 by SB 341.

Further, the Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 was established to make the process of goal measurement (as established by California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989) simpler, timelier, and more accurate. The Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 builds on California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 compliance requirements by implementing a simplified measure of jurisdictions' performance. The Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal -based indicator —the per capita disposal rate —which uses only two factors: (1) a jurisdiction's population (or in some cases employment); and (2) its disposal, as reported by disposal facilities. In 2019 (the last year data was approved), the City implemented 41 programs to reduce solid waste generation and achieve the increased solid waste diversion required.

These programs involve composting, facility recovery, household hazardous waste, policy incentives, public education, recycling, source reduction, special waste materials, and transformation (biomass) (CalRecycle, 2019a). Building operators would be required to participate in the City's recycling programs and comply with hazardous waste disposal regulations. The City had an average disposal rate of 4.8 pounds per resident per day and 33.2 pounds per employee per day in 2019. These disposal rates are less than the established disposal rate targets for the City (9.7 pounds per resident per day and

42.1 pounds per employee per day) (CalRecycle, 2019b). Therefore, resident- and employee -generated solid waste being diverted to landfills is less than anticipated for the City, and the City is in compliance with solid waste management regulations. The Project would be required to coordinate with Waste Management, Inc., the waste hauler, to develop collection of recyclable material for the Project on a common schedule as set forth in applicable local, regional, and state programs. Recyclable materials that could be recycled by the Project include paper products, glass, aluminum, and plastic. Future tenants of the Project would comply with the solid waste management regulations by mandatory participation in the City's recycling programs and with hazardous waste disposal regulations.

Hazardous waste generated during construction would be disposed of per existing regulations (discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR). Similarly, hazardous materials used during the construction and operation of the warehouse uses, including maintenance activities, would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations. Further, as discussed above, solid waste generated during construction activities would adhere to the diversion requirements outlined in the CalGreen Code, and would exceed the required 65% diversion rate. The Project would participate in established programs for commercial development projects to reduce solid waste generation, in accordance with the provisions of the Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems As such, the Project would not conflict with any federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste management. Therefore, no impacts related to compliance with solid waste statutes would occur, and no mitigation is required.

4.19.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project site in conjunction with other development projects and planned development within the service area for the respective utility provides or the service area for specific facilities (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities).

As with the Project, each individual related development project would require the construction of necessary infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, storm drain facilities, dry utilities, and others) to serve the project. Each individual development project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruption of service or inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility providers would allow for the provision of utility services to the Project and other developments. The Project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to offset increased demand and assist in facility expansion and service (at the time of need). Therefore, the Project impacts would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact associated with construction of utility infrastructure or provision of utility services.

The Project involves a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre -Zone, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement to develop the Project site with industrial, commercial, open space, and open space — conservation uses. The Project site was previously planned with a different proposed land use -- density of 2,000 EDUs with an estimated water demand of 1,092 AFY, which was included in BCVWD's UWMP. With the approval of the Project's proposed discretionary approvals, the Project would reduce the density of EDUs from 2,000 EDUs to 360 EDUs and reduce the estimated water demand from 1,092 AFY to 197 AFY, a substantial reduction. According to the Project -specific WSA, the BCVWD has sufficient potable water supplies to meet existing and future demands through the year 2040 under normal, single -dry, and multiple dry years. As such, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on water supply.

The Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 has an existing capacity of 6.0 mgd is poised to meet current and future demands of the City. As such, there is adequate existing and proposed capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the Project and cumulative development. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact on wastewater treatment facilities.

The City, including the Project site and cumulative development, are within the service area of the Lamb Canyon Landfill and a majority of the City's solid waste is disposed of at the Lamb Canyon Landfill. The remaining portions of the City's solid waste are disposed of at landfills with adequate capacity throughout Riverside County and surrounding counties within the State. The solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would represent nominal portions of daily disposal capacities at existing landfill facilities. The existing landfill facilities have sufficient daily capacity to handle solid waste during the Project's construction and operation and would not directly Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
MOEnvironmental Impact Report 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems result in the need for expanded solid waste disposal facilities. As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the RCDWR ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The 15 -year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year as part of the annual reporting requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. (City of Beaumont, 2020b, pp. 5.18-36) Further, the Project would adhere to applicable local and State regulations during both construction and long-term operation to reduce solid waste generation. Other cumulative development would be required to comply with such regulations.

Therefore, the Project would not have a significant cumulative impact related to solid waste disposal and compliance with regulations addressing the reduction of solid waste generation and disposal.

4.19.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less -than -Significant Impact. The physical environmental effects associated with installing the Project's proposed connections to existing utility infrastructure, as well as installation of on- and off -site stormwater management, water, and wastewater infrastructure have been evaluated throughout this EIR and no adverse impacts specific to the provision utilities services have been identified. Mitigation measures are identified, where necessary, for construction -related effects that would reduce construction -phase impacts to the maximum feasible extent. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Less -than -Significant Impact. Based on the information provided in the Project -specific WSA, the BCVWD has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project in normal, dry, and multiple dry years and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold c: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project's proposed wastewater generation would not exceed the capacity of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. The Project's wastewater generation would represent a nominal increase in wastewater treatment demand and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project's proposed solid waste disposal needs would be adequately accommodated by existing landfills serving the City. The Project would comply with all applicable State and local standards, goals, and policies related to solid waste reduction and management. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to solid waste.

Threshold e: No Impact. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statues and regulations pertaining to management and reduction of solid waste. No impacts associated with regulatory compliance would occur.

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

NM
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire

4.20 WILDFIRE
This section describes the existing wildfire conditions of the Project site and vicinity and evaluates the Project's potential to exacerbate wildfire impacts. Information presented in this section is primarily based on the following technical reports, which are included in their entirety in Technical Appendices M1 and M2, of this EIR.
• Dudek. 2022. Fire Protection Plan Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan County of Riverside, November 15, 2022.
• CRA Mobility, 2022. Beaumont Pointe Project Fire Evacuation Analysis — Technical Memorandum. July 27, 2022.

Refer to Section 7.0, References, for a complete list of reference sources used in this analysis.

4.20.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Regional Setting
The Project site is within Southern California; specifically, within Riverside County, which has a climate that is typical of a Mediterranean area with warm, dry summers, and cold, wet winters.

Precipitation in this region of Southern California averages less than 16 inches and typically occurs between December and March. The prevailing wind is an on -shore flow between 7 and 11 mph from the Pacific Ocean (Dudek, 2022).

Fires can be a significant issue for the region year-round, but especially during dry Santa Ana wind events. Santa Ana winds are strong, extremely dry downslope winds that originate inland and affect coastal Southern California and northern Baja California. The seasonal Santa Ana winds can be strong in the Project area as warm and dry air is channeled through the San Gorgonio Pass from the dry, desert land to the east. Santa Ana winds events can occur throughout the year; however, they generally occur during the fall months. Santa Ana winds may gust up to 75 miles per hour (mph) or higher. This phenomenon markedly increases the wildfire danger and intensity in the Project area by drying out and preheating vegetation as well as accelerating oxygen supply (Dudek, 2022).

Common ignition sources in southern California are related to power lines and vehicles. Power line - based ignitions are a major concern with respect to off -site wildfire impacts. However, this risk can be mitigated by burying power lines, as they would be on the Project. Burying power lines significantly eliminates a potential ignition source within the Project site and benefits the larger vicinity. The remaining highest likelihood of vegetation ignitions in the Project area would be related to existing SR -60 and other roads used by Project employees. Ongoing maintenance along SR -60 is provided and is expected to continue, if not increase in frequency as part of overall fire reduction efforts not within the control of the Project. These efforts reduce or minimize the ability for a vehicle related spark, catalytic converter failure, or other ignition source to ignite and spread fire from the roadsides into unmaintained fuels.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire

8. Existing Setting

1. Wildfire Risks
A wildfire is a nonstructural fire that occurs in vegetative fuels, excluding prescribed fire. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designated and maintained to be ignition resistant. In the City of Beaumont, moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) are in and near undeveloped land, both within the existing City limits and in the SOI. High and Very High FHSZ are in the northeast portion of the City and SOI near the San Bernardino Mountains as well as in undeveloped areas in the Potrero Reserve along SR -79 in the southern portion of the City (City of Beaumont, 2020a).

The City and its SOI is also identified by CalFire as being within a "wildland-urban interface" (WUI).

A WUI is an area where urban development is in proximity to open space or "wildland" areas. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or within proximity to wildland fuels or designated fire severity zones. Historically, several fires have occurred in the wildland-urban interface in Riverside County and the threat intensifies under the Santa Ana winds and other extreme fire weather conditions (City of Beaumont, 2020a).

2. Project Site
The Project site is within the SOI for the City of Beaumont, within Western Riverside County.

According to the RCIT and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), and as shown in Figure 4.20-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the Project site is classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) within a State responsibility area (SRA) (RCIT, 2021; CalFire, 2021). The Project site is undeveloped and disturbed with varying topography consisting of hillsides, ridges, canyons, and valleys. The Project site is primarily vegetated with non-native grasses and sage scrub. Numerous dirt roads and trails were observed throughout the Project site. The Project 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 Project site. A roughly northwest trending drainage divide directs drainage to the north into San Timoteo Canyon and south through the badlands into San Jacinto Valley (Dudek, 2022).

According to the Project's Fire Protection Plan (FPP) (see Figure 5 in Technical Appendix M1), prepared by Dudek, the Project site's wildfire behavior in sage scrub was modeled at Sh5, which is described as dry climate shrub, and in annual grasslands was modeled at Gr4, which is described as moderate load dry climate grass (Dudek, 2022).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ Environmental Impact Report

STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
0 275 550 1,100
Feet

4.20 Wildfire
Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA (2021), CAL Fire (2021)
Figure 4.20-1
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
Surrounding land uses that lie adjacent to the Project site include Hidden Canyon industrial project (grading currently underway) to the east, and undeveloped, vacant land to the south and west as well as residential development northeast and north of the SR -60 Freeway. The SR -60 Freeway follows the northern boundary of the Project site with Coopers Creek, Union Pacific Railroad and San Timoteo Canyon Road a short distance away. The San Timoteo Badlands are just to the south of the southern boundary of the Project and the area is undeveloped to the west and south of the Project site. Within the City of Beaumont's jurisdictional boundary, the land is primarily designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) local responsibility area (LRA).

3. Downstream Flooding
Existing site topography ranges from approximately 2,230 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northwest portion to approximately 2,510 feet amsl in the southeast portion. (KCG, 2019) Under existing conditions and as further discussed in EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater originating from the site drains to the northeast towards SR -60 and to 16 existing Caltrans maintained culverts. There are no existing on -site water features and the Project site is not within FEMA Zone X, which is an area of minimal flooding.

4. Emergency Response
The City of Beaumont contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department in conjunction with CalFire for City-wide fire protection, emergency medical services, and fire safety education.

Additionally, the United States Forest Service, a federal agency, manages nearby public land in national forests and grasslands. There are two fire stations within the City limits: Station 66 and Station

20. Station 66, located at 628 Maple Avenue, is staffed 24/7 with career firefighters and would provide initial response. Station 66 has one staffed Type 1 engine, one Type I engine (unstaffed reserve), and one squad unit (also not staffed). Secondary response would be provided from RCFD Station 20, which is located at 1550 E. 6th Street in Beaumont, and can respond within 9 minutes to the entrance.

Beaumont Station 20 has one staffed Type 1 engine, two staffed Type 3 engines, and a state-owned dozer and dozer tender, and will be capable of responding within 7 minutes to the proposed entrance of the Project (Dudek, 2022).

4.20.2 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 wildfire impacts.

4.20.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following is a brief description of the federal, State, and local environmental laws and related regulations related to fire hazards.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
A. Federal
There are no federal regulations related to wildfires applicable to the Project.

8. State

1. California Building Code (Chapter 7A)
The purpose of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building located in any Fire Hazard Severity Zone within State Responsibility Areas or any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area to resist the intrusion of flames or embers projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in conflagration losses (CBC, 2016).

C. Regional

1. CalFire/Riverside County Unit Strategic Fire Plan
The CalFire/Riverside County Unit Strategic Fire Plan (Fire Plan) is a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and California Department of Forestry and Fire Plan Protection. The Fire Plan provides a road map for prevention and reduction of firefighting costs and loses to property, life, and the environment in San Jacinto Mountain communities including the City of Beaumont (City of Beaumont, 2020a).

2. Riverside County Fire Department
Early evacuation for any type of wildfire emergency at the Project is the preferred method of providing for occupant and business safety, consistent with the Owner's and RCFD current approach for evacuation. As such, the Project's Owner and Property Management Company will formally adopt, practice, and implement a "Ready, Set, Go!" (Riverside County Fire Department 2020) approach to Project site evacuation. The "Ready, Set, Go!" concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire agencies, including: Pre -planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well-defined plan, minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the Project site's fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative (evacuate as early as possible) approach to evacuation and Project site uses during periods of fire weather extremes.

Riverside County identifies policies related to fire prevention standards. The specific Municipal Code policies that are relevant to the Project are as follows:

Ordinance No. 787 — Fire Code Standards. The purpose of Ordinance No. 787 is to adopt the 2019 California Fire Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9, as amended, to govern the safeguarding of life and property from fire, explosion hazards and hazardous conditions and to regulation the issuance of permits and collection of fees. (Riverside County, 2019)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

ME Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
MO Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
Ordinance No. 348, Section 21.32a — Emergency Access. A private drive or roadway construction according to Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12.B. l a or b., providing access to one or more buildings. The access may be gated and located at one or both ends restricting traffic to emergency vehicles only (Riverside County, 2020).

D. Local

1. City of Beaumont Emergency Operations Plan
The Project site is within the SOI for the City of Beaumont and, as such, the Project site would be required to comply with the regulations and standards established by the City. The City of Beaumont has an adopted Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)/National Incident Management System (NIMS). The City's EOP establishes the emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements. The EOP addresses the planned response to extraordinary situations associated with natural disasters and/or human caused incidents.

The plan is intended to facilitate multi -agency and multi jurisdictional coordination, particularly between the City of Beaumont and Riverside County, special districts, and State agencies (City of Beaumont, 2020a).

2. City of Beaumont General Plan
The General Plan identifies goals related to wildfire prevention throughout its elements. 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.

3. City of Beaumont Municipal Code
The City of Beaumont Municipal Code identifies polices related to wildfire prevention. The specific Municipal Code policies that are relevant to the Project are as follows.

Chapter 3.36 — Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fees. City Council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development under the General Plan will result in population growth that will overwhelm the City's ability to temporarily care for and shelter victims of disasters and other emergencies. To prevent these undesirable consequences, Emergency Preparedness Centers must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the City. The City Council acknowledges that the demand for such a Center is shared by new development as well as existing development. The proposed facilities fee apportions the cost of the necessary public improvement among the different categories of new and existing users according to the reasonably estimated demand that each group of users places upon such facilities (City of Beaumont, 2020b).

Chapter 15.20 — Fire Code. The California Fire Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, including Chapter 1, Division II — Scope and Administration, except that Section 103.2 and 109. 3 are not adopted, and Chapters 3, 25, and Sections 403.12, 503, 510.2, and 1103.2 are Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
adopted, including any and all amendments set forth in Chapter 15.20, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is adopted as the City Fire Code (City of Beaumont, 2020b).

4.20.4 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. Section XX of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects related to wildfires and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project's impacts related to wildfire:

If located in or near state responsibility area state responsibility areas of lands classified as very high fire severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage change?

4.20.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
If located in or near state responsibility area state responsibility areas of lands classified as very high fire severity zones:

Threshold a: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As shown in Figure 4.20-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the Project site is designated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within an SRA by the Riverside County General Plan and CalFire. Adjacent to the Project site, within the City of Beaumont's jurisdictional boundary, the land is primarily designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) local responsibility area (LRA). After being annexed to the City of Beaumont, it is possible that the Project site could be re- designated as LRA in a future update of CAL FIRE's Hazard Severity Zone (RCIT, 2021; CalFire, 2021; Dudek, 2022).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

ME Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
MO Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
As discussed under Threshold fin EIR Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During an emergency in the City, operations are coordinated from the City's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in accordance with the City's EOP. The primary EOC location is at the Chatigny Recreation Center (CRC) located on the northeast corner of Oak Valley Parkway and Cherry Avenue. The alternate EOC location is the Beaumont City Hall Facility located at 550 E 6th Street. Additionally, according to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the City has major evacuation routes which include I-10 and SR -60 as well as several major roadways. The following existing major roadways are emergency evacuation routes: Brookside Avenue, Oak Valley Parkway, Highland Spring Avenue, and Beaumont Avenue. It should be noted that an interchange at Potrero Boulevard and SR -60 is under construction and an extension of Potrero eastward to connect to Highland Springs Avenue is planned.

Additionally, the SR -60, immediately north of the Project site, serves as an evacuation route for the City. Following the completion of the extension, Potrero Boulevard shall be designated as an evacuation route (City of Beaumont, 2020a).

Primary access to the Project site is currently provided by Jack Rabbit Trail with immediate access from/to SR -60 and this route will be restricted to providing emergency access only after the Project is constructed. The Project will build an internal "Jack Rabbit Trail" road which will connect to the existing Jack Rabbit Trail at the southern edge of the Caltrans ROW in its current location. The emergency -access -only gate will be located immediately south of the Caltrans ROW where the new Jack Rabbit Trail connects with the existing Jack Rabbit Trail. The gate is proposed to limit access to Jack Rabbit Trail for fire and emergency access only but will not represent an obstructed roadway as there will be various RCFD-approved remote and on -site methods for opening the gate in an emergency, including fitment with sensors, remote opening via cell technology, 3rd party monitoring and gate control (24/7 security company, or others as preferred by RCFD). Fourth Street will be extended into the Project site and will serve as the primary access (78 feet wide) and designed to meet fire department access requirements including approved provisions for fire apparatus turnaround. In addition, according to the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the Project (see Section 3, Project Description), on -site construction will comply with the following requirements from the Road Circulation and Design Guidelines:
• All roads will comply with access road standards of not less than 24 feet, unobstructed width and are capable of supporting an imposed load of at least 75,000 pounds. • Interior circulation streets and parking lot roadways that are considered roadways for traffic flow through the Project site will meet fire department access requirements when serving the proposed structures.
• Typical, interior Project roads, including collector and local roads, will be constructed to minimum 24 -foot, unobstructed widths and shall be improved with aggregate cement or asphalt paving materials.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
• Private or public streets that provide fire apparatus access to buildings three stories or more in height shall be improved to 30 feet unobstructed width. • Private and public streets for each phase shall meet all Project approved fire code requirements, paving, and fuel management prior to combustible materials being brought to the Project site.
• Vertical clearance of vegetation (lowest -hanging tree limbs), along roadways will be maintained at clearances of 13 feet, 6 inches to allow fire apparatus passage. • Cul-de-sacs and fire apparatus turnarounds will meet requirements and RCFD Fire Prevention Standards.
• Any roads that have traffic lights shall have approved traffic pre-emption devices (Opticom) compatible with devices on the Fire Apparatus. • Roadways and/or driveways will provide fire department access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of each structure. • Roadway design features (e.g., speed bumps, humps, speed control dips, planters, and fountains) that could interfere with emergency apparatus response speeds and required unobstructed access road widths will not be installed or allowed to remain on roadways. • Access roads shall be usable by fire apparatus to the approval of RCFD prior to lumber drop on site. Developer will provide information illustrating the new roads, in a format acceptable to the RCFD for updating of Fire Department response maps.

During Project construction, travel lanes to Jack Rabbit Trail and the SR -60 would be maintained until alterative roadway access is constructed, and construction materials and equipment would be staged on site. The Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of an existing road that would impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

No impacts would occur.

Under operational conditions, the Project would be required, by Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, Section 21.32a, Emergency Access, to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles on site. The Project provides for two avenues of egress in the event of an emergency, with primary access provided at 4th Street and emergency access provided via the Jack Rabbit Trail interchange with the SR -60 Freeway. The Project does not include any features that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Additionally, as part of the City's discretionary review process, the City of Beaumont reviewed the Project's application materials to ensure that the design of the Project would meet City requirements, appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to -and -from the Project site and that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area (see Section 4.15, Public Services, of this EIR).

According to the Project's FPP, and as further analyzed in Section 4.15, Public Services, of this EIR, Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
Station 66 would respond within approximately 7 minutes to the Project's entrance and Station 20 would respond within approximately 9 minutes (Dudek, 2022, p. 35).

As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, the Project's proposed industrial/commercial development is anticipated to increase the call volume at a rate of up to 191 calls per year (4 calls per week or 16 calls per month). Fire Stations 66 and 20 combined emergency responses in 2017 totaled 4,943 calls per year or 5.43 and 8.11 calls per day per station, respectively. The level of service demand for the Project would increase overall call volume; however, the increase is not anticipated to impact the existing fire stations to a point that they cannot meet the demand. (Dudek, 2022) Furthermore, it should be noted that the Project would be required by City of Beaumont Chapter 3.36, Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fees, to contribute costs to improve Emergency Preparedness Centers.

The Project will maintain a conservative approach to fire safety, including maintaining the landscape and structural components according to the standards described above and embracing a "Ready, Set, Go!" stance on evacuation.

The time to evacuate under multiple scenarios was calculated via traffic simulations. Table 4.20-1, Evacuation Time Summary, displays the calculated evacuation roadway capacity and the time it would take to evacuate for the Project and surrounding land uses for 17 different scenarios. Figure 4.20-2, Evacuation Routes, displays the evacuation route as well as the location of the emergency exit gate.

As shown in Table 4.20-1, Scenarios 1 — 9 show the total evacuation times for the Project only under the full Project, Weekday, and Weekend conditions using three different evacuation conditions: 1) all evacuation routes available (SR -60 and West 4th Street), 2) SR -60 only, and 3) West 4th Street only.

Scenarios 10 — 12 show the evacuation time for Hidden Canyon Industrial Park without Project under the same three evacuation scenarios. Scenario 16 shows the evacuation time for Hidden Canyon Industrial Park and Olive Wood without Project with all evacuation routes available. Scenarios 13 — 17 show the total evacuation time for the Project with surrounding land uses, including Hidden Canyon Industrial Park under all three evacuation scenarios, as well as, Hidden Canyon Industrial Park and Olive Wood with all evacuation routes available.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

4.20 Wildfire
Table 4.20-1 Evacuation Time Summary
Scenario
No.

Scenario
Total
Evacuation
Vehicles
Project Only
Evacuation Time
Surrounding
Land Uses
1 Project with all Evacuation Routes
4,866
1 hour 50 minutes
-
2 Project with SR -60 Only
2 hours 7 minutes
-
3 Project with West 4th Street Only
2 hours 37 minutes
-
4 ITE Weekday Parking Generation Rates with all
3,022
1 hour 1 minute
_
5 ITE Weekday Parking Generation Rates with
SR -60 Only
1 hour 25 minutes
-
6 ITE Weekday Parking Generation Rates with
West 4th Street Only
1 hour 46 minutes
-
7 Weekend with all Evacuation Routes
2,474
55 minutes
-
8 Weekend with SR -60 Only
1 hour 33 minutes
_
9 Weekend with West 4th Street Only
1 hour 39 minutes
-
10 Hidden Canyon Industrial Park with all
Evacuation Routes Available
808
-
27 minutes
11 Hidden Canyon Industrial Park with SR -60 Only
-
33 minutes
12 Hidden Canyon Industrial Park with West 4th
Street Only
-
31 minutes
13 Project with Hidden Canyon Industrial Park with
all Evacuation Routes Available
5,674
2 hours 1 minute
43 minutes
14 Project with Hidden Canyon Industrial Park with
SR -60 Only
3 hours 36 minutes
59 minutes
15 Project with Hidden Canyon Industrial Park with
West 4th Street Only
3 hours 32 minutes
43 minutes
16 Hidden Canyon Industrial Park and Olive Wood
with all Evacuation Routes Available
2,680
-
35 minutes
17 Project with Hidden Canyon Industrial Park and
Olive Wood with all Evacuation Routes
Available
7,546
2 hours 4 minutes
51 minutes
Source: CRA Mobility, 2022 (Technical Appendix M2 of this EIR) 1 Total Evacuation Vehicles provides number of vehicles that would be evacuating based on the Scenario e.g., under Scenario 1-3, 4,866 total vehicles would evacuate under Project conditions. 2 Column represents time of evacuation for the Project only; where no evacuation time is listed, the Project was not included in the Scenario.
3 Column represents time of evacuation for Surrounding uses only; where no evacuation time is listed, the surrounding land uses were not included in the evacuation modeling.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ Environmental Impact Report

4.20 Wildfire
Source(s): Chen Ryan Associates (07-27-2022)
Figure 4.20-2
Evacuation Routes
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

ME Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■O Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
During a Project evacuation, law enforcement would shut down traffic along the SR -60 Freeway to prevent people from entering an active wildfire area, diverting traffic away from the evacuation area, as well as to keep it open to evacuees who may be in harm's way during mass evacuation scenarios.

Evacuees from the Project would need to travel along both or one of the adjacent evacuation routes, SR -60 or West 4th Street, to reach more urban landscapes and the travel way is hardened (low fuel loading, converted landscapes, developed ignition resistant buildings and hardscape on both sides) and exposure during an evacuation would be limited. Currently, there is no population relying on the emergency egress points at Jack Rabbit Trail and the SR -60 Freeway or 4th Street. However, future development (Hidden Canyon Industrial Park) would use these routes for evacuation during some wildfire scenarios. In the scenario where Hidden Canyon evacuates simultaneously with the Project, evacuation of the Project site and Hidden Canyon is possible in all modeled scenarios; therefore, the Project would not substantially impair an emergency evacuation plan (CRA Mobility, 2022). Details of each scenario are found in the Project's evacuation analysis (Technical Appendix M2 of this EIR).

According to the Project's evacuation analysis, the Project site can be safely evacuated under the worst - case scenarios:
1) When the Project site and Hidden Canyon are fully occupied (all parking spaces occupied) and need to be evacuated concurrently, within 3 hours and 36 minutes using SR -60 only, 3 hours and 32 minutes using 4th Street only, or 2 hours and 1 minute when using all evacuation routes are available (Scenarios 13-15).
2) When the Project site, Hidden Canyon Industrial Park, and Olive Wood are fully occupied (all parking spaces occupied) and need to be evacuated concurrently, within 2 hours 4 minutes when all evacuation routes are available (Scenario 17).

These scenarios will require additional emergency management pre -planning and "in the field" determinations of when evacuations are needed and how they are phased to maximize efficiency.

However, as shown above, the current evacuation time for the surrounding communities ranges from 27 minutes to 35 minutes (Scenarios 10 and 16), adding the maximum number of vehicles from the Project's site increases the evacuation time between 16 minutes and 26 minutes.' In the event that the time to evacuate is considered too long to evacuate safely by police and fire personnel, in the field at the time of the evacuation event, then Project site employees and visitors can be ordered not to evacuate and to shelter -in -place in the specific locations that were constructed to allow for safe sheltering in place. In accordance with the Fire Protection Plan (Technical Appendix M1), a shelter -in -place plan will be prepared and provided to all on -site personnel outlining the actions to take if a shelter -in -place notification is provided by emergency management sources. The project buildings will be constructed of concrete which is non- combustible and highly resistant to heat. 1 Increase in evacuation time determined by comparing no project scenarios (Scenarios 10-12 and 16) to with project and surrounding land use scenarios (Scenarios 13-15 and 17). For example, Scenario 13 (43 minutes) — Scenario 10 (27 minutes) = 16 minutes; and Scenario 14 (59 minutes) — Scenario 11 (33 minutes) = 26 minutes.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
Because of the concrete/ignition resistant construction, fuel modification zone setbacks and the type of lower fire intensity vegetative fuels in the vicinity of the site, sheltering in place is considered to be a safe option if a fast-moving wildfire precludes complete evacuation of the Project site. The City of Beaumont has adopted the Emergency Operations Plan and Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) / National Incident Management System (NIMS). This plan establishes the emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements. Emergency responders will utilize this plan to determine whether the Project's visitors and employees should shelter -in -place or evacuate under an emergency scenario.

Evacuations are fluid events and evacuation timeframes may vary widely, depending on a variety of factors including the number of vehicles evacuating, the road capacity to move those vehicles, employee or patrons' awareness and preparedness, evacuation messaging and direction, and on -site law enforcement control. Because there are no standards for determining whether an evacuation timeframe is appropriate, deferring to actual evacuation results and similar project analysis is a typical approach.

In the case of historical wildfire evacuations in Riverside County, there are several notable examples that indicate the extremely high success rate for evacuating large numbers of people and doing so in a managed and strategic way through the available technological innovations available to emergency managers. While large-scale evacuations may take several hours or more and require moving people long distances to designated areas, the success rate in Riverside County is nearly 100% safe evacuations. Comparing similar project analysis indicates that it is common to increase evacuation times when new communities are built and the increase in time can be 45 minutes or more based on lack of road capacity to absorb and facilitate movement of the additional vehicles. However, as indicated above, the Project can be safely evacuated under the worst -case scenarios and would not interfere or impede with an emergency evacuation route.

Additionally, although the Project is not to be considered a shelter -in -place development, because the Project site would be highly ignition resistant in terms of its buildings and landscape/hardscape, it is anticipated that an additional option available to emergency managers in some wildfire and other emergency scenarios will be directing people to temporarily remain on site and seek refuge within the ignition resistant buildings or other safe areas on the site. When an evacuation is ordered, it will occur according to pre -established evacuation decision points or as soon as notice to evacuate is received, which may vary depending on many environmental and other factors.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project is not anticipated to interfere or impede an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation route during operation or construction. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EU Environmental Impact Report

4.20 Wildfire
Threshold b: Would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Currently, the Project site is undeveloped, disturbed, vacant and has hills in the south. The Project site's hills would remain undeveloped and would contain existing native and non-native vegetation that would be susceptible to wildfire.

Defensible space is defined as managed and maintained areas adjacent to structures that enable fire suppression activities through the removal of flammable fuels and maintenance of landscapes that would not readily transmit wildfire. Defensible space enables firefighters to safely position themselves at the development edge and begin tactical protection efforts. The Project would incorporate defensible space in the form of modified fuel areas in two managed zones, a fuel maintenance zone and a fuel modification area (FMA).

A typical fuel modification zone (FMZ) is a strip of land where combustible vegetation is removed and/or modified and partially or totally replace with more appropriately spaces, drought -tolerant, fire- resistant plants to provide a reasonable level of protection to structures from wildland fire. Although a FMZ is the typical method used to ensure that a Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would reduce wildfire -related impacts, other fuel management methods can be used to provide the functional equivalent to a traditional FMZ, such as a FMA or fuel maintenance zone.

In addition to a 100 -foot FMA, the Project will provide a 20 -foot -wide fuel maintenance zone. An FMA occurs around the perimeter of the Project's wildland exposures and a fuel maintenance zone is measured outward from the edge of the developed pad. The fuel maintenance zone will be irrigated and landscaped area to the pad edge, extending the protections provided by the FMA. For the Project, the FMA will be 100 feet wide starting from the edge of the developed pad and moving inward.

As a wildfire burns into the irrigated zone, fire behavior is affected, substantially reducing flame lengths, spread rates and intensity, thus causing wildfires to become spotty. FMZs or "brush management" was initially made part of the Public Resources Code 4290 and 4291 to protect natural resources from fires originating in neighboring developed areas and have since become focused on protecting communities and structures. However, FMZs, fuel maintenance zones and FMAs in the case for the Project, continue to have the same benefit of buffering preserved open space areas from accidental ignitions within communities. Positioning the low plant density, creating an irrigated zone directly adjacent to the development pad, and implementing defensible space provides a significant buffer between structures and other landscape fire and native vegetation. These techniques aid in preventing ignitions in the built environment but also across the larger landscape. The same way that fuel modification will setback a wildland fire from structures, the fuel modification will setback a structure fire from the more burnable native plants. Embers can be generated by a structure fire and can be blown over the fuel modification into native fuels, but the inclusion of automatic sprinklers in every building combined with the presence of staffed fire stations with fast response times significantly reduces the potential for a structure fire to reach a size that would produce significant impacts. The Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
highest likelihood of vegetation ignitions would be related to roadways. Further, as depicted in the fire behavior modeling for existing and post -Project conditions, the Project at buildout would reduce the overall risk of wildfire spreading off site with implementation of the fire safety requirements, defensible space, and vegetation management.

Should future iterations of the site plan result in buildings that do not achieve a minimum of 100 feet of defensible space, then alternative materials and methods may be proposed to provide the functional equivalency of a full 100 feet of defensible space. Alternative materials and methods will be to the satisfaction of the RCFD and may include structural hardening enhancements or landscape features, like non-combustible walls (Dudek, 2022).

Based on the conceptual site plan, the buildings have more than adequate on -site defensible space (FMAs and FMZs), which consists of asphalt roadway, parking stalls, loading zones, irrigated landscaping, and irrigated slope protection landscaping. A description of the Project's FMZs is provided below.
• FMZ 1— Planning Area 1 (Hospitality): The single proposed hospitality building would be surrounded by paved parking lots, streets, driveways, irrigated landscaping a minimum of 200 feet wide, and adjacent buildings, the closest of which is about 80 feet away. • FMZ 2 — Planning Area 2 (Commercial): There are seven proposed buildings in the commercial Planning Area with eleven different occupancies proposed in the conceptual plan.

The east side of the buildings is bordered by a 75 -foot -wide street and an approved development (grading underway) across the street. The west side of the buildings is adjacent to a large parking lot at least 500 feet wide. The north side of the buildings is adjacent to the hospitality building approximately 80 feet north.
• FMZ 3 — Planning Area 3 through Planning Area 8 (Industrial): In the conceptual plan, there are five industrial buildings each of which is set back from the edge of the developed pad between 195 feet and 405 feet; in between are asphalt roadways, parking stalls, loading zones, and irrigated landscaping. Along the entire southern perimeter of the developed pad and PAs 3 through 8 is the 78 -foot -wide 4th Street fire apparatus access road. Provided below is a description of the five proposed buildings' setbacks.
o Building 1 has a 205 -foot setback on the north side with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 25 feet and a 265 -foot setback on the south with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 100 feet. The east and west exposures have adjacent buildings. Additionally, the Planning Area 4 Park is proposed south of proposed Building 1.
o Building 2 has a 205 -foot setback on the north side with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 80 feet and a 265 -foot setback on the south with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 125 feet. The east and west exposures have adjacent buildings.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
o Building 3 has a 70 -foot setback on the north side with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 125 feet and a 192 -foot setback on the south with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 75 -feet. The east and west exposures have adjacent buildings.
o Building 4 has a 205 -foot setback on the northside with adjacent irrigated slopes with an average width of 25 feet and a 283 -foot setback on the south with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 25 feet. The east and west exposures have adjacent buildings.
o Building 5 has a 205 -foot setback on the north side with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 200 feet, a 283 -foot setback on the south with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 100 feet, and a 235 -foot setback on the west with adjacent irrigated slopes that have an average width of 100 feet. The east and west exposure has an adjacent building. The 20 -foot fuel maintenance zone is achieved on all exposed sides of the building; however, there is a small portion of the building's northwest corner that is not able to achieve the full 100 -foot FMA. Based on the structure's ignition resistance and the modeled flame lengths, the achievable FMA and fuel maintenance zone is sufficient (Dudek, 2022).

Vegetation management would be implemented as interim fuel management throughout the Project's construction phases for each structure as there may be a period of one or more years where developing phases are exposed on multiple sides to wildland fuels. The Project's proposed design features, which include asphalt roads and parking stalls, and a fully irrigated landscape, would provide a level of safety against wildfires equal to a 100 -foot wide FMZ. The Project is considered to represent a low wildfire risk to its occupants based on its ability to provide for evacuations and contingency on -site shelter -in - place. The implementation of the on -site defensible space (FMAs and FMZs) would reduce the risk of wildfire at the Project site and would improve the ability of firefighters to fight fires on the properties and protect the site and neighboring resources, irrespective of the cause or location of ignition (Dudek, 2022).

Moreover, all structures would be protected by an automatic, internal fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with RCFD and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. Fire sprinkler plans for each structure would be submitted and reviewed by RCFD for compliance with the applicable fire and life safety regulations, codes, and ordinances as well as the RCFD Fire Prevention Standards for fire protection systems. The internal waterlines are anticipated to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands required for the Project's interior fire sprinkler systems for all the Project's proposed structures (Dudek, 2022).

The ignition resistance and fire safety awareness of the Project and its population influences the likelihood of fire ignitions and the potential for fire to spread off site into adjacent wildland fuels and negatively impact existing communities. It is a relatively rare event when a wildfire occurs, and an even rarer event when a wildfire escapes initial containment efforts. Approximately 90 to 95% of wildfires are controlled below 10 acres. Studies (Keeley & Syphard 2018; Syphard et al. 2007; Syphard & Keeley Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
2015) show the ignition resistance and fire safety awareness of the Project and its population influences the likelihood of fire ignitions and the potential for fire to spread off site into adjacent wildland fuels and negatively impact existing communities. As the research indicates, humans can drive wildfire ignition risk, but they can also reduce it. When fire protection is implemented at the parcel level and leverages ignition resistant building materials, infrastructure improvements, and landscape design the wildfire risk can be significantly reduced in the surrounding environment. When wildfire is planned for and safety measures are incorporated into the building design, such as with the Project, it can not only withstand wildfire, but prevent it. This prevention benefits the Project and the surrounding areas by reducing the landscape level fire risk. Further, given the Project's multi -scaled approach to fire protection, it is unlikely that the Project would be a significant source of ignitions and result in increased off -site impacts related to wildfire (Dudek, 2022).

The Project is not expected to significantly increase the already known fire risk associated with roads and in fact the Project- and road -adjacent fuel modification would aid in reducing the preexisting risk.

Interior roadways are also not expected to result in significant vehicle ignitions. Jack Rabbit Trail will be restricted to serve as an emergency access road only; all but eliminating the fire risk associated with vehicle use on that road. The on -site roadways would comply with all fire department access requirements and be adjacent to fuel modification. Therefore, even if ignition were to occur on the Project interior roadways, it is highly unlikely it would spread beyond the Project site and due to the level of hardscape and the adjacent fuel modification areas, would result in patchy and slow fire spread and reduced fire intensity.

On-going/as-needed fuel modification maintenance during the interim period while the Project is built out and adjacent parcels are developed, which may be one or more years, will include necessary measures for consistency with the FPP, including:
• Regular Maintenance of dedicated Open Space.
• Removal or thinning of undesirable combustible vegetation and replacement of dead or dying landscaping.
• Maintaining ground cover at a height not to exceed 18 inches. Annual grasses and weeds shall be maintained at a height not to exceed three inches. • Removing accumulated plant litter and dead wood. Debris and trimmings produced by thinning and pruning should be removed from the Project site or chipped and evenly dispersed in the same area to a maximum depth of four -inches. • Maintaining manual and automatic irrigation systems for operational integrity and programming. Effectiveness should be regularly evaluated to avoid over or under -watering.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.20 Wildfire
• Complying with these FPP requirements on a year-round basis. Annual inspections are conducted following the natural drying of grasses and fine fuels, between the months of May and June, depending on precipitation during the winter and spring months.

Long-term protection of the development and the surrounding area is dependent on the maintenance of fuel modification as even fire -safe designs can degrade over time. To alleviate this, the Project will conduct regular assessments of the FMZs and FMAs. During this maintenance, dead and dying material and undesirable plants will be removed. Thinning will also be conducted as necessary to maintain plant spacing and fuel densities. This will keep the FMZs, FMAs and landscaped areas in a highly fire resistive condition free of accumulated flammable debris and plants.

The development of the Project site with the Project would not facilitate the spread of wildfire and would reduce projected flame lengths to levels that would be manageable by firefighting resources for protecting the site's structures, especially given the ignition resistance of the structures and the planned ongoing maintenance of the entire site landscape (Dudek, 2022). In addition, the Project will comply with the measures established in the FPP with respect to construction and maintenance at the Project site, including in FMZs and FMAs. As such, the Project is not anticipated to exacerbate wildlife risks, thereby exposing Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold c: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
As discussed above under Threshold b, the Project would implement on -site defensible space (FMAs and FMZs) to preclude wildfire impacts. These are designed to reduce rather than exacerbate fire risk.

Analysis of the Project's construction impacts on other aspects of the environment is provided throughout this EIR. As indicated in Threshold b, vegetation management during construction and operation within FMZs and FMAs will be performed by the Project owners, tenants and managers in accordance with the FPP to reduce risk of wildfire. Therefore, impacts associated with construction and maintenance of FMZs and FMAs would be less than significant.

The Project would result in the construction of on -site, internal roadways, and a portion of 4th Street and would improve Jack Rabbit Trail. The Project Applicant would construct 4th Street from its current terminus at the easterly edge of the Project site and would replace the existing Jack Rabbit Trail on the Project Site with alternative roadways providing access to the existing unmaintained Jack Rabbit Trail roadway to the south of the Project site and providing emergency egress to the Jack Rabbit Trail interchange at the SR 60 Freeway. As discussed under Threshold a above, the Project's paved roads would be constructed to meet City Building and Fire Code requirements and would be incorporated into the FMA to reduce the Project's potential to spread wildfires. As described above, regular maintenance during construction and operation would be performed in accordance with the FPP to Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
avoid exacerbating fire risk. Therefore, impacts associated with roadway construction and maintenance would be less than significant.

As further discussed in EIR Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would result in the installation of utility infrastructure on site and to the terminus of 4th Street to the east of the Project site that would connect to the existing utility infrastructure within the surrounding roadways. It should be noted that a new water tank is anticipated to be installed as part of the nearby Legacy Highland Project and would be used to serve the Project's water demand, including fire protection requirements.

The impacts associated with the installation of the new water tank are analyzed in the EIR for the Legacy Highland Project. The Project would install an 18 -inch waterline that would be extended westerly along 4th Street on the Project site and connect to the new water tank that is part of the nearby Legacy Highland Project. The installation of the 18 -inch waterline would be inherent to the Project's construction phase. Installation and maintenance of water infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk and would support the Project's ability to withstand fire by providing required fire flows to the Project site. As discussed under Threshold a above, the Project's paved roads would be incorporated into the FMA to reduce the Project's potential to spread wildfires and impacts and regular maintenance during construction and operation would be performed in accordance with the FPP to avoid exacerbating fire risk. Common ignition sources in southern California are related to power lines and vehicles. Power line -based ignitions are a major concern with respect to off -site wildfire impacts. However, this risk would be prevented by burying power lines. Burying power lines significantly eliminates a potential ignition source within the Project site and benefits the larger vicinity. The Project would underground power lines within the Project site. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities construction and maintenance would be less than significant.

The remaining highest likelihood of vegetation ignitions in the Project area would be related to existing SR -60 and other roads used by Project employees. However, the Project provides roadside fuel modification along all roads it creates and neighboring development is converting fuels along the primary access road such that it will be free of flammable roadside fuelbeds. Ongoing maintenance along SR -60 is provided and is expected to continue, if not increase in frequency as part of overall fire reduction efforts not within the control of the Project. These efforts reduce or minimize the ability for a vehicle related spark, catalytic converter failure, or other ignition source to ignite and spread fire from the roadsides into unmaintained fuels. The Project is not expected to significantly increase the already known fire risk associated with roads and in fact the Project- and road -adjacent fuel modification would aid in reducing the preexisting risk. Interior roadways are also not expected to result in significant vehicle ignitions. Jack Rabbit Trail on the Project Site to the SR -60 will be restricted to serve as an emergency use road only; reducing fire risk associated with vehicle use on that road. The on -site roadways would comply with all fire department access requirements and be adjacent to fuel modification. Therefore, even if ignition were to occur on the Project interior roadways it is highly unlikely it would spread beyond the Project site and due to the level of hardscape and the adjacent fuel modifications areas, would result in patchy and slow fire spread and reduced fire intensity (Dudek, 2022).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
In addition to the Project's utility infrastructure, the Project would result in the installation of on -site fire hydrants that are designed in accordance with the RCFD standards. The internal waterlines are anticipated to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands required for on -site fire hydrants. Furthermore, the Project would provide a proactive educational component to business owners with informational brochures at time of occupancy, disclosing the potential wildfire risk and the requirements identified in the Project's FPP. This educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a "Ready, Set, Go!" stance on evacuation. The "Ready, Set, Go!" concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire agencies, including RCFD and includes: Pre- planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well- defined plan, minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the Project site's fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative (evacuate as early as possible) approach to evacuation and Project site uses during periods of fire weather extremes. The Project's educational component is not anticipated to result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment (Dudek, 2022).

Although the Project would result in the installation and maintenance of new infrastructure, the Project's proposed infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff post -fire instability or drainage change?
According to RCIT and FEMA, the Project site is within an area of minimal flooding (RCIT, 2021; FEMA, 2014). As further discussed under Threshold c of EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would maintain a similar drainage pattern as compared to existing conditions. It should be noted that the overall development pad would be elevated by the proposed design grading to be situated above local drainage courses. As such, the risk of flooding is low. (KCG, 2019) Additionally, the implementation of the Project would result in a 100 cfs reduction in peak flows discharging from the Project site. As such, impacts related to downslope/downstream flooding and drainage changes would be less than significant.

As discussed under Threshold a of EIR Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, portions of the Project site have a "low" to "moderate" susceptibility for landslides (KCG, 2019). Regardless of the landslide susceptibility, the Project would be required by the CBC and Beaumont Building Code to comply with the recommendations identified in the Project's Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on -site areas. The implementation of the Project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial risks, including landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire instability or drainage change. Impacts would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post - fire instability, or drainage change. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.20.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The cumulative impact analysis considers potential wildfire impacts of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site as well as other projects within the City of Beaumont.

The Project would be required to comply with the City's EOP during construction and operation. With respect to evacuation, the cumulative analysis considered the Project in conjunction with surrounding development that would utilize the same evacuation routes during a wildfire.

As described above, adding the maximum number of vehicles from the Project's site would increase evacuation times for surrounding development between 16 minutes and 26 minutes. However, these scenarios are highly conservative as they assume that all parking spaces are fully occupied at both the proposed Project site and the Hidden Canyon Industrial Park site. Additionally, under all scenarios, the increase in evacuation time is associated with the proposed Project, and not the surrounding land uses, as the proposed Project is located on the furthest end of the study area, and vehicles from the surrounding land uses would reach the transportation network before vehicles from the proposed Project. The Project and surrounding development can be safely evacuated under the worst case scenario (Scenario 14: Project with Hidden Canyon Industrial Park with SR -60 Only) and would not interfere or impede with an emergency evacuation route. Additionally, although the Project is not to be considered a shelter -in -place development, because the Project site would be highly ignition resistant in terms of its buildings and landscape/hardscape, it is anticipated that an additional option available to emergency managers in some wildfire and other emergency scenarios will be directing people to temporarily remain on site and seek refuge within the ignition resistant buildings or other safe areas on the site. When an evacuation is ordered, it will occur according to pre -established evacuation decision points or as soon as notice to evacuate is received, which may vary depending on many environmental and other factor. The implementation of the Project would not result in the substantial alteration of an existing roadway such that the Project would interfere directly or indirectly with the implementation of an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation route. Thus, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Further, the Project would implement FMZs and FMAs that will reduce the potential to exacerbate wildfires at the Project and surrounding area. Additionally, the Project's proposed building would incorporate an internal sprinkler system and the Project would install fire hydrants on site, which would further reduce the Project's potential to exacerbate wildfire risks. As such, the Project would reduce the potential for wildfires to spread to adjacent properties. Additionally, other development Projects in the area within a VHFHSZ would incorporate FMZs and/or other infrastructure to reduce the potential to spread wildfires. Implementation of the measures will reduce the risk of wildfire spreading from the Project site into surrounding areas and will improve the ability of firefighters to fight fires on the protect Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ ❑
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
property and neighboring properties and resources, irrespective of the cause or location of ignition. As such, the Project would not result in a cumulative impact.

The Project would result in the Installation of infrastructure consisting of FMAs, FMZs and utilities; however, the construction and operation of the proposed infrastructure would comply with applicable State and local standards regulating fire risk. Other projects under construction would also be required to comply with the same State and local building and fire code requirements regarding construction and access. As such, the implementation of the Project would not result in a cumulative impact from the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure.

The potential hazards related to wildfire addressed under Threshold d are unique to the Project site and are inherently restricted to the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including downslope or downstream flooding and landslides are specific to the Project site and the immediately surrounding area. Additionally, the Project site would not influence or exacerbate downslope or downstream flooding and landslides at other, off -site properties. Due to the site -specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effect to or from other properties. The Project would not result in a cumulative impact.

4.20.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less -than -Significant Impact. The City has an adopted EOP that establishes emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does the site serve as an emergency evacuation route. During Project construction, Jack Rabbit Trail would be maintained on site until alternative connecting roads are established and construction materials and equipment would be staged on site. Under operational conditions, the Project would be required by Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, Section 21.32a, to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles on site. The Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of an existing road that would impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Less -than -Significant Impact. Portions of the Project site would remain undeveloped and would contain existing native and non-native vegetation that would be susceptible to wildfire. The Project would incorporate FMAs and FMZs, which would consist of asphalt roadways, parking stalls, loading zones, irrigated landscaping, and irrigated slope protecting landscaping and would comply with the requirements of the FPP and State and local regulations with respect to construction and maintenance of the Project. Vegetation management would be implemented both throughout the construction phases for each structure as there may be a period if one or more years where developing phases are exposed on multiple sides to wildland fuels, and during operational phases of the Project.

Moreover, all structures would be protected by an automatic, internal fire sprinkler system. The development of the Project site with the Project would not facilitate the spread of wildfire and would Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.20 Wildfire
reduce projected flame lengths to levels that would be manageable by firefighting resources for protecting the site's structures, especially given the ignition resistance of the structures and the planned ongoing maintenance of the entire site landscape. As such, the Project is not anticipated to expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold c: Less -than -Significant Impact. Impacts associated with the Project's proposed FMAs and FMZs would be less than significant. The Project would construct 4th Street to its ultimate half -width and widen Jack Rabbit Trail to its ultimate half -width. The Project would result in the installation of on -site utility infrastructure that would connect to the existing utility infrastructure within the surrounding roadways. All power lines would be placed underground. The Project would install an 18 - inch waterline that would be extended westerly along 4th Street and connect to a new water tank to be installed by the Legacy Highland Project. In addition to the Project utility infrastructure, the Project would result in the installation of on -site fire hydrants, that are designed in accordance with the RCFD standards and to meet fire flow requirements. Although the Project would result in the installation of associated infrastructure, the Project's proposed infrastructure is not anticipated to exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project site is within an area of minimal flooding.

Additionally, the Project would maintain a similar drainage pattern as compared to existing conditions and would reduce peak flow rates by 100 cfs. Additionally, portions of the Project site have a "low" to "moderate" susceptibility for landslides. The Project would be required by the CBC and Beaumont Building Code to comply with the recommendations identified in the Project's Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and constructed to maximize stability in order to preclude safety hazards to on -site areas. The implementation of the Project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial risks, including landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire instability or drainage change. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.20.8 MITIGATION
With project design features and regulatory compliance, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

4.20.9 SIGNIFICANT OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126 requires that all aspects of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. It also sets forth general content requirements for environmental impact reports (EIRs). Potential significant effects of the proposed Project; mitigation measures to address these effects and potential cumulative impacts have been identified throughout the analysis presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of this EIR. An analysis of alternatives is included in Section 6.0, Alternatives.

This section provides: (1) identification of significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented, (2) identification of significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementing the Project, and (3) growth -inducing impacts of the Project.

5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE

PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)).

As described in detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, the Project is anticipated to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the consideration of Project Design Features, compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations, and the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:
• Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Conflict): The Project would be inconsistent with AQMP Criterion No. 1 and 2, resulting in a potentially impact significant. The Project would implement development -specific air quality mitigation measures (MM 4.3-1 through 4.3-12), to reduce the Project's construction -source and operational -source air pollutant emissions.

Additionally, incorporation of contemporary energy -efficient technologies and operational programs, and compliance with South Coast AQMD emissions reductions and control requirements would reduce Project air pollutant emissions. The implementation of mitigation measures, Project's emissions -reducing design features, and operational programs are consistent with and support overarching AQMP air pollution reduction strategies. Project support of these strategies would globally promote timely attainment of AQMP air quality standards and would bring the Project into conformance with the AQMP to the extent feasible.

However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively - considerable basis.
• Air Quality (Criteria Pollutant Emissions): The Project construction -source emissions have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD regional thresholds for VOC and NOx emissions prior Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EU Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations to mitigation. After application of regulatory controls such as Rule 403, only VOCs and NOx are anticipated to exceed South Coast AQMD regional thresholds. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, Project construction -source emissions of VOCs would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, even after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2, NOx emissions would still exceed applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds.

Project operations would exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. During Phase 1, the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of NOx. During Phase 2, the Project will exceed the thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. During Phase 3, the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Even with the Project's compliance with applicable rules, and the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified above (see MM 4.3-3 through MM 4.3-12), the Project's operational NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the applicable regional thresholds of significance.

Accordingly, Project -related emissions would not meet South Coast AQMD air quality standards and contribute to the non -attainment of ozone standards in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Therefore, Project construction -related impacts due to NOx and operational -related impacts due to VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Project related GHG emissions totaling 63,911.07 MTCO2e/yr would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold. After the application of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures (MM 4.3-3 through 4.3- 12 and MM 4.8-1), the annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the Project under Project Buildout scenario would be 60,638.09 MTCO2e per year (1,200.61 MTCO2e per year or 0.02% attributed to construction, 9,572.16 MTCO2e per year or 15.8% attributed to building operation, and 49,865.32 MTCO2e per year or 82.2% attributed to mobile sources), which would continue to exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold and would be significant and unavoidable on a cumulatively -considerable basis. No additional feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project's GHG emissions to levels that are less than significant because the majority of the Project's emissions come from mobile sources which are regulated by the State and not the City of Beaumont.
• Noise (Traffic Noise): The Project would result in a significant impact from operational traffic noise during Existing (2020) plus Project conditions, Opening Year (2023 and 2027) plus Project Conditions, and Horizon Year (2045) Plus Project Conditions for three roadway segments (#4, #5, and #6). Under Opening Year (2025) plus Project Conditions, the Project would result in a significant impact for one roadway segment (segment #6). There are no feasible mitigation measures that exist to reduce Project traffic noise impacts. Therefore, Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Project -related off -site traffic noise level increases are considered significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis.
• Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled): The Project would result in a significant VMT impact Project components and mitigation measures available to reduce VMT include: developing pedestrian network improvements, providing design features that encourage people to walk or bike instead of drive, implementing TDM measures such as those listed in Mitigation Measure MM 4.17-1, car/vanpool program with preferred parking; bike lockers and secure bike racks; preferential parking spaces for car -share, carpool, and ultra -low or zero emission vehicles; and installation of electric vehicle charging stations. Additionally, various design features are included in the Project to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity (sidewalks and bicycle parking). Encouraging businesses to allow telecommuting and alternative work week hours and to use ridesharing programs also can reduce VMT, but the City of Beaumont has no jurisdictional authority to mandate the businesses practices of private enterprises. Additionally, there is no means to quantify any VMT reductions that could result. It is also recognized that as the Project area and surrounding communities develop as envisioned under the City of Beaumont General Plan (Beaumont 2040 Plan), new residential, retail, and industrial development would be implemented. These actions could collectively alter transportation patterns, improve the region's jobs/housing ratio, reduce VMT, and support implementation of new or alternative TDM measures. Additionally, the effectiveness of some of the TDM strategies that have potential to reduce the Project VMT are dependent on as yet unknown Project building tenant(s), which can change over time; and as noted above, "VMT reductions from TDM strategies cannot be guaranteed in most cases." Hence, relying on TDM programs tied to tenants would likely result in the need for on -going monitoring to verify performance Therefore, Project impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE

PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved with the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses. • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. • The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. The Project site is currently and has historically been vacant and undeveloped, except for the eastern portion of the site that contains the paved portion of Jack Rabbit Trail. The Project would permanently alter the site by converting vacant and undeveloped property to urban uses, which would commit future generations to similar uses. This is a significant irreversible environmental change that would occur because of Project implementation.

Construction and long-term operation of the Project would require the commitment and reduction of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural gas (for vehicle emissions, construction, lighting, heating, and cooling of structures) as well as lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in building construction, piping, and roadway infrastructure). Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by Project implementation, such as air quality (through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases) and water supply (through the increased demands for potable water for drinking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs). However, use of nonrenewable resources is not expected to negatively impact the availability of these resources.

Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which will minimize the Project's demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. Further, as indicated in Section 4.6, Energy, of this EIR, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

An increased commitment of public and utility services (e.g., police, fire, sewer, and water services) would also be required. Project development is an irreversible commitment of the land, energy resources, and public services. After the 50- to 75 -year structural lifespan of the building is reached, it is improbable that the site would revert to its current use due to the large capital investment that will already have been committed.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ ❑
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations

5.3 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the proposed project could be growth inducing. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2[e]). New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.

To address this issue, potential growth -inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions:

1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)?

2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?

3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?

4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? A project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth, or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity. However, a project's potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project examined throughout Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis of this EIR.

Would this project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? The Project would require the construction and extension of roadways and utility infrastructure to serve the development. Figure 3-8, Conceptual Circulation Plan, shows the Project's proposed circulation and roadway sizes and classifications. As shown, the Project would construct four main roadways for on -site circulation -4th Street, Jack Rabbit Trail, Entertainment Avenue, and Industrial Way. The Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations main roadway that would provide access to the Project site is 4th Street, which would be constructed from Jack Rabbit Trail at the easterly edge of the Project site to provide a looped road system around the entire site. Since all proposed roadways would be constructed on site and for the exclusive purpose of serving the proposed development, the Project would not create major new infrastructure that could result in substantial, unplanned growth.

Water, reclaimed water, and sewer infrastructure is currently under construction to the center line of 4th Street 350 feet east of the eastern boundary of the Project site. As shown in Figures 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11, the proposed potable water, reclaimed water, and sewer system would connect to infrastructure lines from the Hidden Canyon Industrial Park project located immediately to the east to the Project to provide service to the Project site. The Project site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and is surrounded by existing development to the east, the SR -60 to the north, and MSHCP conservation land to the west and to the south/southwest of the site, with rural mountainous lands directly to the south/southeast.

Therefore, infrastructure would not extend beyond the Project site and induce population growth. Since all proposed utility infrastructure would connect to lines at the eastern edge of the Project site and would be sized to exclusively serve the proposed development, this Project infrastructure would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth.

Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, the Project would not necessitate the expansion of existing public service facilities to maintain desired levels of service. If these facilities or associated resources do need to be expanded in the future, funding mechanisms are in place through existing regulations and standard practices to accommodate such growth. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing consequences with respect to public services.

Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with the increase in project population and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This occurs in suburban or rural areas where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population. This type of growth is, however, a regional phenomenon resulting from introduction of a major employment center or regionally significant housing project. For example, additional commercial uses may be drawn to the area by the increased number of residents in the area because of a project.

Economic growth is expected to take place as a result of the Project implementation from construction jobs, visitors to the commercial uses, and employees generated by the Project. The Project's employees (short-term construction and long-term operational) and visitors would purchase goods and services in the region. Additionally, the Project could result in new off -site jobs in all industrials of the economy.

While the specific location of the potential additional off -site jobs created within the City cannot be Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations specifically determined, it is reasonable to assume that a large percentage of these jobs will be support service jobs and are likely to be located in the Project vicinity.

As shown in Table 4.14-1, the City's population and employment has grown steadily over the past decades. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, by 2045, the City is anticipated to have a population of 80,200 residents according to SCAG's Connect SoCal and 131,949 by 2040 based on City's estimates. Similarly, SCAG forecasted 15,900 jobs in the City by the year 2045 and the City's General Plan forecasted 21,497 jobs within the City limits (exceeding SCAG forecasts) and 16,727 jobs within the SOI, totaling 38,224 jobs within the City and its SOI by 2040 (City of Beaumont, 2020b). The Project's proposed 5,456 total jobs were anticipated by the City's General Plan and represent approximately 33% of the anticipated jobs within the City's SOI and approximately 14% of the City's total job pool. Therefore, the Project's employment is within both SCAG and City growth forecasts and would contribute to a more balanced job -housing ratio (see Table 4.14-4).

The extent to which the new jobs created by a project are filled by existing residents is a factor that tends to reduce the growth -inducing effect of a project. During Project construction, design, engineering, and construction -related jobs would be created. This would last until Project construction is completed. At full -Project build out, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 5,456 permanent jobs.' Employees would come from within the City or the surrounding region because there is an imbalance of jobs and housing in Western Riverside County and the jobs that an industrial and commercial project in the region is likely to provide would be consistent with the job skills of residents in the area. For example, according to SCAG's Pre -Certified Local Housing Data, Beaumont has 19,385 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. The most prevalent industry is Education & Social Services with 5,714 employees (29.5% of total) and the second most prevalent industry is Retail trade with 2,593 employees (13.4% of total). Additionally, the Construction industry has 1,071 employees (0.06% of total) and the Manufacturing industry has 1,483 employees (0.08% of total). (SCAG, 2021b) The Project's employment generation would not induce substantial growth in the area because the Project would result in service -oriented and industrial -oriented jobs, which are jobs that are anticipated to be filled by existing and future residents of the City and surrounding area.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in August 2021, the Riverside -San Bernardino - Ontario region's civilian labor force exceeded 2,090,800 persons with more than 1,931,500 people employed and an unemployment rate of 7.6% (or 159,300 persons) (BLS, 2021). Accordingly, the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario region contains an ample supply of potential employees under existing conditions and the Project's labor demand is not expected to draw a substantial number of new, unplanned residents to the area. Furthermore, approximately 91.1% of Beaumont residents commute outside of the City for work and more housing units are expected to be built within the City over the next 20 years. The Project would provide job opportunities close to home for existing and 1 Based on standard employment factors in the City's General Plan. Specifically, 1,000 s.f./employee for 4,500,000 s.f. Industrial Warehouse, 750 s.f./employee for 500,000 s.f. General Light Industrial, and 1,163 s.f./employee for 336,000 s.f. of Commercial.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations future Beaumont residents, which would subsequently help achieve a better job -to -housing balance within the City.

In summary, because it is anticipated that most of the Project's future employees would already be living in the City of Beaumont or the surrounding areas, the Project's introduction of employment opportunities on the Project site would not induce substantial growth in the area.

Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The Beaumont General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element designates the Project site as Rural Residential 1. The Project Applicant's proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) PLAN2019- 0284 would amend the City of Beaumont's General Plan Land Use Map to modify the land use designations for the Project site from "Rural Residential" to "Industrial (I)," "General Commercial (GC)," "Open Space (OS)," and "Open Space -Conservation (OS -C)." The Project Applicant also proposes to annex and incorporate the Project site into the City. As such, the Project Applicant is proposing Pre -Zone PLAN2019-0283 to amend the City of Beaumont's Zoning Map to include the Project site and classify the Project site as "Specific Plan (Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan)". The Project is limited to the Project site's boundaries and does not include any components that would indirectly affect existing or planned uses on neighboring properties. The development of the proposed commercial, industrial, and open uses on the Project site would not reasonably or foreseeably cause the redevelopment of other properties or cause development on other properties.

Furthermore, the Project's potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities and/or different uses than the City's General Plan and Zoning Code allow is speculative; however, it should be noted that implementation of the Project would not result in the approval of proposed uses on any other property outside of the Project site. CEQA does not require the analysis of speculative effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 151454). If any other property owner were to propose redevelopment of a property in the Project vicinity or in any part of the City, the redevelopment project would require evaluation under CEQA based on its own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects.

The operation and maintenance of the Project would generate jobs, but any potential growth -inducing impact of the employment of persons at the Project site was accounted for in the City's General Plan, as the Project's proposed 5,456 total jobs represent approximately 33% of the anticipated jobs within the City's SOI and approximately 14% of the City's total job pool. Accordingly, the Project would not directly promote growth either at the Project site or at the adjacent and surrounding properties that were not accounted for in the City's General Plan. Upon the approval of the Project Applicant's requested discretionary applications (General Plan Amendment, Pre -Zone, Specific Plan, TPM, and Development Agreement), the Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and Zoning classification for the Project site.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

NM
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives

6.0 ALTERNATIVES

6.1 INTRODUCTION
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) describes the scope of analysis that is required when evaluating alternatives to proposed projects, as follows:
"An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selection of a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason." As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, the Project would result in significant adverse environmental effects associated with air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise, and transportation that cannot be mitigated to below levels of significance after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The Project's significant and unavoidable impacts are summarized below in Section 6.1.2.

6.1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan is to accomplish the orderly development of General Commercial, Industrial, Open Space, and Open Space -Conservation land uses over the approximately 539.9 -acre Project site. The Project would achieve this goal through the following Project Objectives.

A. Develop large land areas in the City and particularly south of SR -60 and adjacent to existing industrial uses, infrastructure, and truck routes to meet the growing demand for large scale industrial and warehouse development in the City while minimizing impacts of industrial development on residential and other sensitive receptors in the City, which are primarily located north of SR -60.

B. Providing for conservation of open space habitat within MSHCP criteria cells in a manner consistent with the MSHCP requirements and providing access for wildlife movement to Caltrans constructed and proposed wildlife under -crossings along the SR -60 Freeway that abut the northern Project boundary to accommodate wildlife movement.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
C. Maximizing opportunities to develop land in the City's sphere of influence to provide job opportunities and economic benefit to the City and its residents, including new sales and property tax revenues that can be used for City services and providing sufficient fiscal benefit to permit annexation of the Project site into the City.

D. Creating new job opportunities within the City of Beaumont to improve and maximize the jobs to housing balance within the City and reduce the need for members of the existing local workforce to commute long distances.

E. Fulfilling a need in the City and region for wellness -based retail, including entertainment, recreation, hospitality, and restaurants.

F. Developing a center that will accommodate a variety of future tenants, including light manufacturing, warehouse, distribution tenants and other businesses that rely on transportation efficiency within an industrial corridor in a location with superior access to the local and regional transportation network, thereby minimizing truck traffic on local streets and reducing vehicle miles traveled in the region.

G. Developing a project that utilizes existing investment in capital improvements for water, reclaimed water, sewer, storm drain and circulation facilities to further the planned development of land in the City and in its sphere of influence.

H. Developing a range of warehouse facility options, such as varying structure sizes and building configurations within the City with high -quality businesses to facilitate local and regional distribution of goods while minimizing vehicle miles traveled, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.

I. Minimizing the demand for water resources by creating a development -wide landscape concept that features drought -tolerant plant materials to provide for an aesthetically pleasing outdoor environment and developing a project where recycled water is planned to be available.

6.1.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, the proposed Project would result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to below levels of significance after the implementation of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures. The unavoidable significant impacts are as follows:
• Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Conflict): The Project would emit air pollutants (VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State ozone standards in the SCAB. Because the Project requires a General Plan Amendment, it also would exceed the growth projections contained in South Coast AQMD's 2016 AQMP.

As such, the Project would conflict with and could obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

Project impacts due to a conflict with the South Coast AQMD 2016 AQMP would be significant and unavoidable on both a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ ❑ Environmental Impact Report

6.0 Alternatives
• Air Quality (Criteria Pollutant Emissions): After the application of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures, Project -related NOx emissions during construction and VOC, NOx, PMIo, and PM2.5 emissions during long-term operation of the Project would remain above the applicable South Coast AQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, Project -related emissions would not meet South Coast AQMD air quality standards and contribute to the non -attainment of ozone standards in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Therefore, Project construction -related impacts due to NOx and operational -related impacts due to VOC, NOx, PMIo, and PM2.5 emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis. • GHG Emissions: Project related GHG emissions totaling 63,911.07 MTCO2e/yr would exceed the GHG emission significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. After the application of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures, the annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the Project under Project Buildout scenario would be 60,638.09 MTCO2e per year (10,772.77 MTCO2e per year or 17.8% attributed to building operation and 49,865.32 MTCO2e per year or 82.2% attributed to mobile sources), which would continue to exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold and would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis. No other feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project's GHG emissions to levels that are less than significant.
• Noise (Traffic Noise): The Project would result in a significant impact from operational traffic noise during Existing (2020) plus Project conditions, Opening Year (2023 and 2027) plus Project Conditions, and Horizon Year (2045) Plus Project Conditions for three roadway segments (#4, #5, and #6). Under Opening Year (2025) plus Project Conditions, the Project would result in a significant impact for one roadway segment (segment #6). There are no feasible additional mitigation measures that exist to reduce Project traffic noise impacts.

Therefore, Project -related off -site traffic noise level increases are considered significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis. • Transportation (Vehicle Miles Travel): Effectiveness of some of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that have potential to reduce the Project Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) are dependent on as yet unknown Project building tenant(s). After the application of Project design features and feasible mitigation measures, Project impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis.

6.2 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that an alternative be included that describes what would reasonably be expected to occur on the property in the foreseeable future if the proposed Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (i.e., "no project" alternative). For development projects that include a revision to an existing land use plan, the "no project" alternative is considered to be the continuation of the existing land use Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
plan into the future. For projects other than a land use plan (for example, a development project on an identifiable property such as the proposed Project evaluated herein), the "no project" alternative is considered to be a circumstance under which the proposed Project does not proceed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A-B). For the alternatives' analysis in this Draft EIR, both "No Project/No Development Alternative" and the "Existing City General Plan Alternative" was considered.

6.2.1 No PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that no development or improvements would occur on the Project site and the entire 539.9 -acre site would remain vacant and undeveloped. This alternative was selected by the City as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing condition (as described in EIR Section 3.0).

6.2.2 EXISTING CITY GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project - Existing General Plan Alternative considers development of the Project site with land uses that are consistent with the existing City of Beaumont General Plan land use designation. The City of Beaumont General Plan designates the Project site as Rural Residential 1 which permits one single-family dwelling per one acre lot. The General Plan further anticipates that buildout of the Rural Residential 1 land use in the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) would consist of up to 383 dwelling units. Accordingly, the Existing City General Plan Alternative considers that the property would be annexed into the City for a residential development of up to 383 single family units on the Project site. Under this alternative, the Project site would be graded within approximately the same boundaries as the limit of grading for the Project in order to create residential one acre lots.

6.2.3 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative was selected to reduce impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in an overall 50% reduction of non -hotel, commercial development within Planning Areas 1 and 2 and an overall reduction of 995,000 sf of industrial development. The reduction in industrial development would occur by eliminating 995,000 sf in Planning Area 8 and expanding Planning Area 7 to allow an additional 305,000 sf (update to 905,000 sf) of industrial development. Overall, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would allow for up to 123,000 sf of commercial development, a 125 -room hotel, and 4,000,000 sf of industrial development. Additionally, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in a considerable reduction in grading activities (eliminating approximately 3 million cubic yards of cut and fill).

6.2.4 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Intensity Alternative was selected to reduce impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would consider development Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ O Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
of the Project site with a 10% reduction in industrial and commercial development. Under this alternative, the Project would allow for 4,495,500 sf of industrial development, 221,400 sf of commercial development, and a 125 -room hotel. The development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project. Access to the site would be the same with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces.

6.2.5 TRUCK STORAGE YARD ALTERNATIVE
The Truck Storage Yard Alternative was selected to reduce impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. The Truck Storage Yard Alternative would be the same as the Project except that it would replace the warehouse building in Planning Area 8 (approximately 1,000,000 sf) with a truck storage and lay down yard. Overall, the Project would allow for up to 246,000 sf of commercial development, a 125 -room hotel, 4,000,000 sf of industrial development, and a truck storage yard. The grading quantities and phases would be the same as the Project.

6.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the City but were rejected as infeasible. Factors described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 in determining whether to exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR include: a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the proposed Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(0(1) notes:
"Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries...and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site... "
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either: 1) they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the Project, 2) they would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts, or 3) they were considered infeasible to construct or operate. A summary of the alternatives that were considered but rejected are described below.

6.3.1 ALTERNATIVE SITES
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]). In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is "remote and speculative," such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant.

The Project proposes to develop an approximately 539.9 -acre site with a maximum of 246,000 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. The Project Applicant has ownership and control over the Project site, and the Project site's location in proximity to SR -60, which provides direct access to the regional transportation network, connecting the site to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, adjacent to an existing industrial development (under construction) and away from residential uses is conducive to industrial and commercial development.

Given the size and type of the proposed development, a similarly sized project and land use elsewhere in the South Coast Air Basin would result in the same or greater project -level and cumulative air quality, GHG emission, and transportation impacts. Significant unavoidable regional air quality and GHG emission impacts of the Project relate primarily to mobile emissions during operation and are not site specific, therefore, relocation of the Project would not substantially reduce these impacts. The Project's location is preferrable for industrial and commercial development to other areas of the City because of its proximity to 1) the regional transportation network and major infrastructure, reducing vehicle miles traveled; and 2) within an industrial corridor separated from sensitive receptors (e.g. residential uses, schools, etc.), reducing potential located air quality and associated health risk impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the Project is neither meaningful nor necessary, because the significant impacts resulting from the Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation in an alternate location.

Furthermore, there are no alternative sites within the City or its sphere of influence that are similarly sized that would be suitable for industrial and commercial uses proposed by the Project. Other developable land within the City would either require a general plan amendment and zone change, or would place industrial and commercial uses closer to established residential communities.

Additionally, the Project Applicant does not own or control another suitable site that would achieve the underlying purpose and objectives of the Project. As a result, this alternative was rejected from further consideration.

6.3.2 ALL -COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE
The All -Commercial Only Alternative, which assumes the Project site is proposed for regional commercial uses only, was considered to analyze an alternative land use that met or partially met some of the Project objectives. Namely, the All -Commercial Alternative would have the ability to minimize the demand for water resources in support of Objective I and partially meet the following Project Objectives:
• Objective C. Maximizing opportunities to develop land in the City's sphere of influence to provide job opportunities and economic benefit to the City and its residents, including new Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
sales and property tax revenues that can be used for City services and providing sufficient fiscal benefit to permit annexation of the Project site into the City. • Objective D. Creating new job opportunities within the City of Beaumont to improve and maximize the jobs to housing balance within the City and reduces the need for members of the existing local workforce to commute long distances.
• Objective G. Developing a project that utilizes existing investment in capital improvements for water, reclaimed water, sewer, storm drain and circulation facilities to further the planned development of land in the City and in its sphere of influence.

Additionally, by constructing commercial uses the All -Commercial Alternative would not meet the following objective to the same extent: Project Objective E: Fulfilling a need in the City and region for wellness -based retail, including entertainment, recreation, hospitality, and restaurants. However, this alternative would construct regional shopping uses providing shopping and restaurants, but would not provide wellness -based retail, including recreation and hospitality. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet the following objectives:
• Objective A. Develop large land areas in the City and particularly south of SR -60 and adjacent to existing industrial uses, infrastructure and truck routes to meet the growing demand for large scale industrial and warehouse development in the City while minimizing impacts of industrial development on residential and other sensitive receptors in the City, which are primarily located north of SR -60.
• Objective F. Developing a center that will accommodate a variety of future tenants, including light manufacturing, warehouse, distribution tenants and other businesses that rely on transportation efficiency within an industrial corridor in a location with superior access to the local and regional transportation network, thereby minimizing truck traffic on local streets and reducing vehicle miles traveled in the region.
• Objective H. Developing a range of warehouse facility options, such as varying structure sizes and building configurations within the City with high -quality businesses to facilitate local and regional distribution of goods while minimizing vehicle miles traveled, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.

Additionally, the All -Commercial Alternative was rejected from further consideration because it would not reduce or eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rate for regional shopping centers (ITE 820), the All -Commercial Alternative would result in a substantial increase in vehicle trips in comparison to the Project, resulting in a substantial increase in air quality emissions, GHG emissions, and transportation impacts. For example, a 750,000 square foot regional shopping center would generate 34,786 daily trips. Although Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
this alternative would reduce truck trips, it would nearly double the Project's 16,266 daily trips (see Technical Appendix P of the EIR.

6.3.3 RURAL RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE
A Rural Residential Alternative was considered that assumed rural residential uses consistent with the County's existing General Plan and zoning designations. The Project site is designated as Rural Mountainous (RM) in the County of Riverside General Plan, which allows single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Based on Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, the Project site is zoned Controlled Development Areas with a minimum 20 -acre lot (W-2-20). Based on the County's existing general plan and zoning designations, the 539.9 -acre Project site would be allowed to develop up to 27 rural residential units. However, the Project site is not well suited to rural development in that it lacks potable groundwater and would require use of septic tanks, which is discouraged. Although water, sewer and roadway infrastructure is available at the easternmost portion of the site, the limited number of units that could be constructed would not be able to sustain the costs needed to develop roadways or to take the infrastructure connections across the site for these homestead type developments. In addition, development of homes in very high and high severity fire hazard zones in such a dispersed development pattern significantly increases wildfire risk and is highly discouraged, and the amount of fuel modification required could also be difficult to achieve given the limited number of units that would be permitted. Additionally, this alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration.

6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The City has identified the following alternatives as a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. These alternatives are described in more detail and evaluated for their level of environmental effects, compared to the Project's environmental effects.

The following discussion compares the impacts of each alternative considered by the City with the impacts of the Project, as detailed in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the Project. Therefore, the analysis provided herein focuses on a comparison of the Project's significant impacts to the level of impact that would occur under each evaluated alternative. The Project's significant and unavoidable impacts fall under the topics of air quality, GHG emissions, noise (off -site traffic -related noise), and transportation. Although the Project's less -than -significant impacts also are compared to the alternatives evaluated herein, the emphasis of the comparative discussion in this analysis relates to the significant impacts of the Project that require mitigation as required by CEQA. A conclusion is provided for each significant impact of the Project as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: (1) reduction or elimination of the Project's impact, (2) a greater impact than would occur under the Project, (3) the same impact as the proposed Project, or (4) a new impact in addition to the Project's impacts. The analysis below Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
relies, in part, on a comparison of air quality and GHG emissions, trip generation, and VMT provided in Technical Appendix P of this EIR.

Table 6-9, Comparison of Alternatives and Project -related Environmental Impacts, at the end of this Section compares the significant impacts of the Project with the level of impact that would be caused by the alternatives evaluated herein and Table 6-10, Alternatives Attainment of Project Objectives, identifies the ability of each alternative to meet the fundamental purpose and basic objectives of the Project, listed above under 6.1.1, Project Objectives.

6.4.1 No PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that no development or improvements would occur on the Project site and the entire 539.9 -acre site would remain vacant and undeveloped. This alternative was selected by the City as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing condition (as described in EIR Section 3.0).

A. Aesthetics
Under existing conditions, the Project site is characterized by rugged steep ridges and hillsides with narrow canyons that are generally situated on the southwest portion of the site (see Figure 4.1-1, On - Site Visual Character). Relatively gentle ridges, broad canyons, and valleys are located on the northwest and southeast portions of the site. The existing topography of the site consists of low rolling hills and canyons, ranging in elevation between the 2,300 and 2,450 -foot contours (Mean Sea Level).

The site is generally undisturbed, except for the paved portion of Jack Rabbit Trail that traverses through eastern portion of the property, and includes a network of unmarked dirt roads and trails.

Existing unmarked trails traverse the Project site from east to west. Additionally, the Project site does not have any sources of artificial light and does not have any structures that would produce glare.

As stated, the Project site is predominately vacant and undeveloped with hillsides, ridges, canyons, and valleys; however, the City has not identified these scenic resources as a scenic vista. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the visual character and quality of the site would be maintained in its existing condition. No landform modifications would occur on the Project site under this alternative, and implementation of the Specific Plan to allow for industrial and commercial uses, lighting, or landscaping would not occur. Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no impacts.

B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Section 21095 of the CEQA statute and the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G define three of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program's (FMMP's) Important Farmland categories —Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance —as agricultural lands for purposes of CEQA analysis and acknowledge that their conversion to nonagricultural uses may be Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

ME
MD
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
considered a significant impact. Based on the most recent FMMP data available for Riverside County (2016) the Project site does not contain any "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance." As previously discussed, the majority of the Project site is designated as "Other Land" and the remaining portions (approximately 60.9 acres) of the site, areas located around the northeastern boundary of the Project site and along the SR -60, are designated "Farmland of Local Importance" (CDC, 2016b). The Project site has not been used for agriculture. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resource Agency to non-agricultural use, and no impacts would result.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the property in its existing condition. Similar to the Project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resource Agency to non-agricultural use. Since the Project site would remain in its existing condition under this alternative no impact would occur. Under this alternative, impacts would be less than the Project because the Project site would not be disturbed compared to the permanent disturbance that would occur as the result of the Project's proposed development. Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources.

C. Air Quality
The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the introduction of new potential sources of short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) air pollutant emissions that would occur during the implementation of the Project. Accordingly, all of the Project's short- and long-term air quality impacts would be avoided under this alternative, because no construction and operational activities would occur at the Project site. No impacts associated with air quality would occur under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable air quality impacts.

D. Biological Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the property in its existing condition. Under this alternative, impacts would be less than the Project because the Project site would not be disturbed compared to the permanent disturbance that would occur as a result of the Project's proposed development. However, unlike the Project, this alternative would not result in 152.42 acres that would be conserved as natural habitat and dedicated to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

Overall, although the Project would result in less than significant biological resources impacts with incorporation of mitigation measures, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the Project's potential biological resource impacts to special -status wildlife species, burrowing owl, Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
nesting birds, coastal California gnatcatcher, and jurisdictional waters, and no mitigation would be required; therefore, there would be no impact to biological resources.

E. Cultural Resources
Based on a records search conducted as part of the Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment (Technical Appendix D of this EIR), 19 cultural resource locations have been recorded within a one - mile radius, six (6) of which are located within the Project site. Testing of the 6 resources on site determined that the resources were no significant and ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, there are no known significant historic resources, archaeological resources, or human remains identified on the Project site under existing conditions. 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). Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation measures incorporated, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the Project's potential impacts to cultural resources, and no mitigation would be required; therefore, there would be no impact to cultural resources.

F. Energy
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and undeveloped; therefore, the site would not require any additional near -term or long-term energy resources. Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with energy, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impact related to energy use.

G. Geology and Soils
The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no grading of the Project site; therefore, no impacts to geology or soils would occur. No known paleontological resources were identified as occurring within the Project site under existing conditions. However, the San Timoteo Formation underlying the majority of the Project site is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity, and the Project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid potential impacts associated with unearthing previously undiscovered paleontological resources during the Project's grading operations; therefore, this alternative has no potential to impact subsurface resources that may exist in undisturbed soils beneath the ground surface. Accordingly, this alternative would eliminate the Project's potential paleontological resource impacts and no mitigation would be required; therefore; there would be no impact to geology and soil resources.

H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no development would occur on the Project site; therefore, there would be no potential sources of near -term or long-term GHG emissions. Selection of Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
this alternative would eliminate all of the Project's significant and unavoidable effects associated with GHG emissions and no impacts associated with GHG emissions would occur under this alternative.

1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no development would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur. Project impacts were determined to be less than significant related to hazards and hazardous materials, including those associated with the routine transportation, storage, and use of hazardous materials during the operation of the Project. Similarly, this alternative would have no hazardous materials impacts and no mitigation would be required; therefore, there would be no impact to hazards and hazardous materials.

J. Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no grading or development of the property; therefore, the existing drainage pattern would remain the same and no impacts to hydrology or water quality would occur. However, under the No Project/No Development Alternative, drainage improvements or water quality features would not be installed and runoff would continue to flow northeast across the site to the 16 existing Caltrans maintained culverts, as it does under existing conditions. The four detention basins proposed under the Project, which remove pollutants from runoff and filter the water to meet water quality standards, would not occur. Therefore, water quality impacts, including erosion and sedimentation, would be greater under this alternative because the Project site would not receive the benefits from the stormwater drainage and water quality filtration features that would be constructed by the Project. However, development of the Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the Project site, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down into the groundwater sub -basin that underlies the Project site. On balance, this alternative would result in reduced impacts associated with hydrology and water quality when compared to the Project, which were determined to be less than significant.

K. Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any new development that would directly or indirectly result in environmental impacts due to a conflict with an existing land use plan.

However, this alternative would not annex and incorporate the Project site into the City. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in no impacts related to land use and planning.

L. Mineral Resources
The Project site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site by the City's General Plan and does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State. Therefore, development of the Project would result in less than significant impacts to mineral resources. Similarly, implementation of this alternative would have no impacts related to mineral resources.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
M. Noise
Because no development would occur on the Project site under this alternative, no new sources of on - site stationary noise or off -site traffic -related noise generated; therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not contribute to the less than significant incremental increase in area - wide noise levels that would occur under the Project. Development of the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic noise. No impacts associated with noise would occur under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable noise impacts; therefore, there would be no impact related to noise.

N. Population and Housing
Employment growth would not occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative because no new businesses, or other infrastructure would be constructed. Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with population and housing, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impact related to population and housing.

0. Public Services
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and undeveloped. There would be no increase in demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, or libraries. Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with public services, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impact related to public services.

P. Recreation
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new employees would be introduced to the Project, which would reduce potential indirectly impacts resulting from additional demand on parks and recreational facilities in the City. Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with recreation, the No Proj ect/No Development Alternative would have no impact related to recreation.

Q. Transportation
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new development would occur on the Project site and no traffic would be generated at the Project site. Therefore, this alternative would have no impacts related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system; vehicle miles traveled; hazards due to a design feature; or emergency access. The No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable transportation impacts and no impacts would occur.

R. Tribal Cultural Resources
Based on Native American consultation, there is a potential to encounter tribal cultural resources within the Project site during ground -disturbing construction activities in native soils. Project impacts to tribal Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■. Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■u Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
cultural resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project site in its existing condition; no additional grading or disturbance of native soil would occur. As such, this alternative would not result in impacts to undiscovered tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, this alternative would have no impacts related to tribal cultural resource and mitigation would not be required; therefore, there would be no impact to tribal cultural resources.

S. Utilities and Service Systems
The Project site does not generate any need for utilities and service systems under the existing condition, including domestic water, wastewater treatment, or solid waste disposal; therefore, the implementation of this alternative would avoid the increases in the demand for utility services that would be generated by the Project. Although the Project would have less than significant impacts, implementation of this alternative would result in no impacts associated with utilities and service systems.

T. Wildfire
The Project site is designated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) by the Riverside County General Plan and CalFire. The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not exacerbate wildlife risks. The Project would result in the installation of on -site utility infrastructure that would connect to the existing utility infrastructure within the surrounding roadways, which would not exacerbate fire risk. Additionally, the Project would not result in the modification to existing slopes in a way that would exacerbate fire risk or increase flooding or landslides and would not exacerbate pollution from wildfires. However, by constructing ignition resistant buildings, creating defensible space, and implementing vegetation management protocols, the Project would reduce the overall risk of wildfire spread on and off site.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition; no changes to internal or off -site circulation or traffic volumes would occur, and emergency response or evacuation plans would not be affected. However, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in the removal of existing fuel sources or development of ignition resistant structures, parking areas, and irrigated landscaping within a VHFHSZ and HFHSZ, which reduces potential wildfire risks.

Overall, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not allow for development within a VHFHSZ and HFHSZ, and no impact would occur. Although the Project would have less than significant impacts, implementation of this alternative could result in greater impacts associated with wildfire.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
U. Conclusion

1. Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project site. All significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project would be eliminated by the selection of the No Project/No Development Alternative.

However, this alternative would not receive the environmental benefits from the permanent conservation of 152.42 acres of natural habitat consistent with the MSHCP; implementation of stormwater drainage and water quality filtration features; and ignition resistant structures and other wildfire prevention protocols, parking areas, and irrigated landscaping within a VHFHSZ and HFHSZ that would be constructed by the Project.

2. Attainment of Project Objectives
The No Project/No Development Alternative would fail to meet all the Project Objectives, as described in Section 6.1.1.

6.4.2 EXISTING CITY GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project - Existing General Plan Alternative considers development of the Project site with land uses that are consistent with the existing City of Beaumont General Plan land use designation. The City of Beaumont General Plan designates the Project site as Rural Residential 1 which permits one single-family dwelling per one acre lot. The General Plan further anticipates that buildout of the Rural Residential 1 land use in the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) would consist of up to 383 dwelling units. Accordingly, the Existing City General Plan Alternative considers that the Project site would be annexed into the City for a residential development of up to 383 single family units on the Project site. Under this alternative, the Project site would be graded within approximately the same boundaries as the limit of grading for the Project in order to create residential one acre lots.

A. Aesthetics
The existing vacant and undeveloped site would be replaced with 383 dwelling units that would be at a lower height compared the Project, which allows up to a maximum height of 60 feet above finished grade. Design features such as pylon signs, walls, fencing, and monumentation would not be constructed as part of this alternative. Accordingly, although the Project's aesthetic impacts were determined to be less than significant, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would result in the lesser impacts as compared to the Project and would be less than significant.

8. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The majority of the Project site is designated as "Other Land" and the remaining portions (60.9 acres) of the site, located around the northeastern portions of the Project site, is designated "Farmland of Local Importance. Similar to the Project, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would not convert Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resource Agency to non-agricultural use, and less than significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would result.

C. Air Quality

1. Construction
Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, approximately 10 million cubic yards of cut and fill would be required during grading activities, which is less than the approximate 12 million cubic yards of cut and fill required for the Project. This alternative would also result in less overall building square footage and require fewer construction materials. Therefore, implementation of the Existing City General Plan Alternative would result in less construction -related air quality impact than would occur from implementation of the Project. This alternative would reduce but not eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable construction -related air quality impacts.

2. Operation
As shown in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this EIR, the Project's operational emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD regional thresholds for operational - source emissions of these criteria pollutants and would therefore contribute to the violation of air quality standards and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of an ozone precursor. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project's emissions to levels that are less than significant.

The Existing City General Plan Alternative would reduce the number of vehicle trips and associated VMT, which is calculated based on square footage/dwelling units and the types of use. Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, the volume of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 operational -related emissions would be reduced to approximately 29.78, 21.88, 27.45, and 8.11 pounds per day during summer and 28.26, 22.66, 27.45, and 8.11 pounds per day during winter, respectively (see Technical Appendix P of this EIR). The South Coast AQMD thresholds for VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 are 55, 55, 150, and 55, respectively. Therefore, this alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality emissions, and impacts under this alternative would be less than significant.

D. Biological Resources
Similar to the Project, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would require substantial landform modification, resulting in a slightly reduced impact area compared to the Project. Therefore, impacts to special -status wildlife species, burrowing owl, nesting birds, coastal California gnatcatcher, and jurisdictional waters would continue to occur, and mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. Impacts would be similar compared to the Project.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
E. Cultural Resources
The Existing City General Plan Alternative would have the same impact area and no known historic resources, archaeological resources, cultural resources, or human remains were identified as occurring within the Project site under existing conditions. 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). Like the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources from the Existing City General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the Project.

F. Energy
Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, the site would be developed with residential uses which would reduce energy demand due to a decrease in energy consumption and fuel from the reduction in vehicle trips. Construction and operational activities associated with this alternative would have reduced energy demand compared to the Project and impacts would remain less than significant.

G. Geology and Soils
Grading and development of the Project site would occur under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, and therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be similar to those that would be generated from the Project. This alternative would also result in a similar potential to impact undiscovered paleontological resources during grading, as the Project. However, like the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources from the Existing City General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the Project.

H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As previously discussed, Project -related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance GHG emissions and would result in a cumulatively -considerable impact. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project's GHG emissions to levels to less than significant.

Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, approximately 10 million cubic yards of cut and fill would be required during grading activities, which is less than the approximate 12 million cubic yards of cut and fill required for the Project. This alternative would also result in less overall building square footage and use of fewer construction materials. Therefore, implementation of the Existing City General Plan Alternative would result in less impact from construction -related GHG emissions than would occur from implementation of the Project. Additionally, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would also decrease vehicle trips by 78% from 16,266 trips -ends per day to 3,616 trips - ends per day, which is calculated based on square footage/dwelling units and the types of use (see Technical Appendix P of this EIR).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
The Project would result in a net increase of 60,638.09 MTCO2e per year after the implementation of mitigation measures, which would be reduced to 5,131.02 MTCO2e per year under the Existing City General Plan Alternative (see Technical Appendix P of this EIR). This alternative would substantially reduce GHG emissions which would remain significant and unavoidable since GHG emissions would exceed the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.

1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials used during construction activities for the Existing City General Plan Alternative would be similar to the Project. These materials would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard to on -site construction workers or the general public.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction -related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA and DTSC. With mandatory compliance of applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase.

There were no identified contaminated soils on the Project site, therefore construction activities would not involve the transport of contaminated soils, similar to the Project.

The Existing City General Plan Alternative would develop the Project site for the residential uses, which do not involve the use of hazardous materials for operation other than low quantities of household cleaning supplies. Therefore, the type of hazardous materials typically used for operation of the Project would be slightly reduced under the Existing City General Plan Alternative. Similarly, the use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the same federal, state, and local laws and permitting requirements as would occur with the Project. This alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, but reduced compared to the Project.

J. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Existing City General Plan Alternative would develop the Project site with residential uses and the area of impervious surfaces would be reduced compared to the Project. Therefore, this alternative would result in reduced runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality. Like the Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operation activities. Similar to the Project, this alternative would require storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs. Therefore, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as the Project and would be less than significant.

K. Land Use and Planning
The Existing City General Plan Alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment; however, it would require pre -zoning, pre -annexation, and tentative tract maps to allow for residential Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
development. Similar to the Project, this alternative would not conflict with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and Western Riverside County MSHCP. While, like the Project, this alternative would not conflict with the SCAG's Connect SoCal policies, it would impede the Connect SoCal goal of growing the Beaumont area as a job center to a greater extent than would the Project. Therefore, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would still result in a less than significant impact related to land use and planning, similar to, but less optimal than the Project.

L. Mineral Resources
The Project site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site in the City's General Plan and does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State. Therefore, development of the Project would result in less than significant impacts to mineral resources. Similarly, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would have a similar impact area and implementation of this alternative would have less than significant impacts related to mineral resources. Therefore, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would have similar impacts as the Project.

M. Noise
Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, approximately 10 million cubic yards of cut and fill would be required during grading activities, which is less than the approximate 12 million cubic yards of cut and fill required for the Project. This alternative would also result in less overall building square footage and construction materials. However, construction of this alternative would generate the same peak noise volumes and similar type and volume of construction noise as the Project, the length of time of construction and the associated noise would be marginally shorter. Similar to the Project, this alternative would have less than significant construction -related noise impacts.

Operational noise impacts would be reduced under this alternative for both on -site stationary noise sources and off -site traffic -related noise, since residential uses do not generate significant stationary noise sources and truck trips would be eliminated. Therefore, the Existing City General Plan Alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable off -site traffic -related noise impacts that mainly occur due to truck trips, and impacts would be less than significant.

N. Population and Housing
Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, residential uses would not generate job growth like the Project but would generate a estimated population of approximately 1,203 residents (383 dwelling units x 3.14 persons per household = —1,203 persons). As shown in Table 6-1, Estimated Population and Housing Growth in Beaumont with Existing City General Plan Alternative, under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, the population at buildout would be consistent with the both SCAG and City growth forecasts, similar to the Project. However, the jobs -housing ratio would decrease from the Project's 0.92 to 0.59 for the City under existing plus Project conditions and from 0.93 to 0.64 under buildout year plus project conditions, creating a greater jobs -housing imbalance as compared to the Project. This alternative would impede the Connect SoCal goal of growing the Beaumont area as a job Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report

6.0 Alternatives
center and the City's goal of maintaining and improving the jobs housing balance. Overall, impacts to population and housing would remain less than significant with this alternative but would be greater than the Project.

Table 6-1 Estimated Population and Housing Growth in Beaumont with Existing City General Plan Alternative
Existing
(2020/21)
Buildout Year
(2027) Without
Project
Existing (2021)
Plus Project
Buildout Year
(2027) Plus Project
City of Beaumont
General Plan
(2040)
Population
51,475'
58,757
52,678
59,960
131,949
Household
17,232'
19,487
17,615
19,870
40,849
Employment
10,4402
12,808
10,440
12,808

38.224
Job -Housing
Ratio

0.61 0.66

0.59 0.64

0.93 ' Values are from the California Department of Finance (DOF), as shown in Section 4.14.1C. 2 These values are prorated from SCAG's demographic data contained in Table 4.14-1.

0. Public Services
Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, the Project site would be developed with up to 383 dwelling units, resulting in approximately 1,203 new residents. This would result in a corresponding increase in demands placed on public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, and library services. Residential uses would place a greater demand on schools due to the increase in student population. However, as with the Project, impacts would be less than significant. Overall, impacts associated with public services under the Existing City General Plan Alternative would be less than significant, but greater compared to the Project.

P. Recreation
Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, a total of 1,203 residents would be introduced to the Project site, which would increase the impacts resulting from additional demand on parks and recreational facilities in the City. The City currently has a park ratio of 6.52 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (343.4 acres of parkland in total), exceeding the goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Implementation of the Project would require approximately 6.0 acres of parkland to meet the increase in population, which could be developed on site. As with the Project, there is adequate parkland within the City to accommodate the increase in population. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. Overall, impacts associated with recreation under the Existing City General Plan Alternative would be less than significant, but slightly greater compared to the Project due to the increase in residents.

Q. Transportation
Construction and operation -related truck trips would be reduced under the Existing City General Plan Alternative and would decrease by approximately 78%. Trip generation is based on land uses and its Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report

6.0 Alternatives
associated square footage/dwelling units. This would result in a corresponding decrease in overall VMT and proportional decrease in service population. As shown, in Table 6-2, this alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable VMT impact, and impacts would be less than significant (see Technical Appendix P of this EIR).

Table 6-2 Comparison of Project VMT to the Existing City General Plan Alternative Project
Existing City General Plan
Alternative
VMT
213,809
7,175
VMT per SP

39.19 5.96
City Threshold

27.03 27.03
Significant?
Yes
No
Similar to the Project, this alternative would have less than impacts related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system; hazards due to a design feature; and emergency access.

R. Tribal Cultural Resources
The Existing City General Plan Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect tribal cultural resources on the Project site as the Project. However, like the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts that could occur from the Existing City General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the Project.

S. Utilities and Service Systems
The Existing City General Plan Alternative would develop the Project site with up to 383 dwelling units, which would increase the demand for utilities and service systems. Residential uses under this alternative would generate a water demand of 383 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) or 209 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is slightly higher than the Project's water demand of 360 EDUs or 197 AFY (see Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR). The Existing City General Plan Alternative would also result in a proportional increase in wastewater generation. In accordance with the City of Beaumont General Plan EIR, residential uses generate 0.41 tons of solid waste per year.

Under the Existing City General Plan Alternative, the residential uses would generate 157 tons of solid waste per year, substantially less than the Project's 54,752 tons of solid waste per year (see Section

4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR). The Existing City General Plan Alternative would result in an increased demand on water and wastewater services and a reduced demand on solid waste services. On balance, this alternative would have similar impacts on utilities and service systems compared to the Project. Similar to the Project, impacts on utilities and service systems would less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
T. Wildfire
The Existing City General Plan Alternative would construct residential uses within a VHFHSZ and HFHSZ. Similar to the Project, this alternative would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles on site, comply with the City's emergency operations plan for evacuations, and create defensible space to protect against wildfire hazards. Similar to the Project, this alternative would require the installation of on -site utility infrastructure that would connect to the existing utility infrastructure within the surrounding roadways. Additionally, as with the Project, this alternative would not result in the modification to existing slopes in a way that would exacerbate fire risk or increase flooding or landslides, and would not exacerbate pollution from wildfires. However, by constructing ignition resistant buildings in a focused area, creating defensible space, and implementing vegetation management protocols, the Project would reduce the overall risk of wildfire spread on and off site while the development of homes in very high and high severity fire hazard zones in such a dispersed development pattern significantly increases wildfire risk, and the amount of fuel modification required could also be difficult to achieve given the limited number of units. However, this alternative would result in fewer people on site than would the Project, which would reduce impacts related to evacuation compared to the Project, but not to the units on site. Therefore, overall impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant and overall less than the Project.

U. Conclusion

1. Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project The Existing City General Plan Alternative would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, construction - related air quality, GHG emissions, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, utilities and service systems, and some impacts from wildfire. Additionally, this alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational -related air quality, off -site traffic -related noise, and transportation impacts. The Existing City General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts related to population and housing, public services, and recreation compared to the Project. Impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Project.

2. Attainment of Project Objectives
The Existing City General Plan Alternative would fail to meet all the Project Objectives, as described in Section 6.1.1.

6.4.3 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative was selected to reduce impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in an overall 50% reduction of commercial development within Planning Areas 1 and 2 and an overall reduction of 995,000 sf of industrial development. The reduction in industrial development would occur by eliminating 995,000 sf in Planning Area 8 and expanding Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Planning Area 7 to allow an additional 305,000 sf (up to 905,000 sf) of industrial development. Overall, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would allow for up to 123,000 sf of commercial development, a 125 -room hotel, and 4,000,000 sf of industrial development. Additionally, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in a considerable reduction in grading activities (eliminating approximately 3 million cubic yards of cut and fill).

A. Aesthetics
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would have a reduced development area compared to the Project by eliminating 995,000 sf of development within Planning Area 8. The existing vacant and undeveloped site would be replaced with 4,000,000 sf of industrial development, 123,000 sf of commercial development, and a 125 -room hotel at the same maximum height as the Project (60 feet above finished grade). This alternative would also include design features similar to the Project to create an aesthetically pleasing building and site design. Walls and fences will be provided for screening, buffering, and security purposes along building site perimeters and interior to building sites.

Landscaping would include a variety of trees, shrubs, vines, and accent plants along the site's perimeter. Monumentation featuring colorful accent trees, shrubs, and groundcover occur at the Project entrances. Streetscape landscaping presents a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, low shrubs, and masses of groundcovers to create a visually pleasing experience for pedestrians and passing motorists. Accordingly, implementation of the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in less impacts as compared to the Project and would be less than significant.

8. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The majority of the Project site is designated as "Other Land" and the remaining portions (60.9 acres) of the site, located around the northern portions of the Project site, is designated "Farmland of Local Importance. Similar to the Project, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resource Agency to non-agricultural use, and less than significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would result.

C. Air Quality
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would reduce the overall building square footage by 995,000 sf of industrial uses and 123,000 sf of general commercial uses, resulting in a reduced development area, leading to a considerable reduction in grading activities (eliminating approximately 3 million cubic yards). Therefore, implementation of the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in the less construction -related air quality impact compared to the Project. However, construction -related air quality emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Project's operational emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.s would exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD regional thresholds for operational -source emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PMzs and would therefore contribute to the violation of air quality standards and result in a cumulatively Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
considerable net increase of an ozone precursor. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project's emissions to levels that are less than significant.

The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would reduce the number of vehicle trips and associated VMT, which is calculated based on square footage and the types of use. Under the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative, the volume of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced to approximately 156.97, 327.60, 188.64, 54.78 pounds per day during summer and 149.44, 344.82, 188.64, and 54.78 pounds per day during winter, respectively (see Technical Appendix P of this EIR). The South Coast AQMD thresholds for VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 are 55, 55, 150, and 55, respectively. Under this alternative, PM2.5 emissions for both summer and winter would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, under this alternative, the Project's operational air quality emissions for VOC, NOx, PM10 emissions would remain significant unavoidable.

D. Biological Resources
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would have a reduced impact area, resulting in a considerable reduction in grading activities (eliminating Phase 3 grading). This alternative would reduce the development impact area in the northwest portion of the Project site, providing greater wildlife access to the SR -60 undercrossing. However, impacts to special -status wildlife species, burrowing owl, nesting birds, coastal California gnatcatcher, and jurisdictional waters would continue to occur, and mitigation measures similar to those of the Project would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts to biological resources from the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, and reduced compared to the Project.

E. Cultural Resources
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would have a reduced impact area, resulting in a considerable reduction in grading activities. No known historic resources, archaeological resources, cultural resources, or human remains were identified as occurring within the Project site under existing conditions. 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). Like the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources from the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, and slightly reduced compared to the Project.

F. Energy
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would have a reduced impact area, resulting in a considerable reduction in grading activities. Additionally, under the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative, the total building square footage would be reduced, resulting in a reduced Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ O Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
building energy demand and reduced vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, this alternative would have a proportional decrease in building energy consumption and fuel. Construction and operational activities associated with this alternative would have reduced energy demand compared to the Project and impacts would remain less than significant.

G. Geology and Soils
Grading and development of the Project site would be reduced under the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative, and therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be reduced compared to the Project. This alternative would also result in a similar but reduced potential to impact to previously undiscovered paleontological resources during grading, compared to the Project. However, like the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources from the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, and slightly reduced compared to the Project.

H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would have a reduced impact area and building square footage compared to the Project. Therefore, implementation of the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in fewer impacts from construction -related GHG emissions that would occur from implementation of the Project.

As previously discussed, Project -related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold for GHG emissions and would result in a cumulatively -considerable impact. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project's GHG emissions to levels that are less than significant.

The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would decrease vehicle trips by approximately 15% from 16,266 trips -ends per day to 13,614 trips -ends per day, which is calculated based on square footage and the types of use. The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in 48,007.58 MTCO2e per year of GHG emissions (approximately 83% mobile source) compared to the Project's net increase of 60,638.09 MTCO2e per year (approximately 80% mobile source) after the implementation of mitigation measures. This alternative would result in a reduction of GHG emissions but would not eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable GHG impacts, since it would exceed the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, but reduced compared to the Project.

1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same uses as the Project. Therefore, the same type of hazardous materials typically used for construction and operation of the Project would be used under the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative.

Similarly, the use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the same federal, state, Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
and local laws and permitting requirements as would occur with the Project. There were no identified contaminated soils on the Project site, therefore construction activities would not involve the transport of contaminated soils, similar to the Project. Similar to the Project, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

J. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would reduce the total building square footage and development area; therefore, the area of impervious surfaces would be reduced compared to the Project. Therefore, this alternative would result in reduced runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality. Similar to the Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operation activities. Additionally, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs. Therefore, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality, and slightly reduced impacts when compared to the Project.

K. Land Use and Planning
Similar to the Project, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would require a General Plan Amendment, Pre -zoning to "Specific Plan, Adoption of the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map and a Pre -Annexation to implement the development. Similar to the Project, this alternative would be consistent with the SCAG's Connect SoCal policies, the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and Western Riverside County MSHCP. While, like the Project, this alternative would not conflict with the SCAG's Connect SoCal policies, it would impede the Connect SoCal goal of growing the Beaumont area as a job center to a greater extent than would the Project. Therefore, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would still result in a less than significant impact related to land use and planning and similar to the Project.

L. Mineral Resources
The Project site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site by the City's General Plan and does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State. Therefore, development of the Project would result in less than significant impacts to mineral resources. As with the Project, the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to mineral resources.

M. Noise
Construction and operation noise impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Development Area and Intensity Alternative because this alternative would decrease the development impact area and reduce building square footage by 995,000 sf of industrial uses and 123,000 sf of general commercial uses.

Although construction of this alternative would generate the same peak noise volumes and similar type and volume of construction noise as the Project, the length of time of construction and the associated noise would be marginally shorter. Operational noise would also be reduced under this alternative as Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007