Beaumont City Council
May 21, 2024

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
• 1,
.n
r
f
1 t �. �.
•
>.
``--_
--
-
- -
Study Area
' a
� N
■�
. � ,..
--.
r
Project Site
.,
�
i
•
• -•1
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
•=
-
�"`
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
t `rah
�►
•'.
`
.'�
. _
J
r"u
•
�, •
�.� Y.
��
,,.■a.
.

�.

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

Jack Rabbit Trail Road
Y1t
'
■
r
.

f

�� l ..

Non Native Grassland
.

Southern Riparian Scrub
-,
�
.
�`�
N..

A
.
..
.
a
/' v_
�i"
1 all
II
-, v
lam'
,:r
--
-.�
-
—..�j}
a
Al
..._
ii,
iik
f4
4 bing
._
.
/
.

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

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

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

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

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

^^ -*/ i ^.•` �.y , .`
it
Study Area
0 ►.. ,.y , �=
.�� �y
Project Site
..r.r ice,., � y► illik, , ih. rM..�
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
,,�ii ,wa'� ,_ _ '�
is '+�3 ' - • , �. ti ' -��
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
r'�` _
; . s r��r . F ��o- �.� _ _et ��
‘4111J
_�
y """ .. • f

..

Cell Group A'
`-. , "�`t ..r " l �,
e„,,. - --m .s g���� . •\
Criteria Cells
� ,, _�'. ��
; f
�, , (
.� '4 a it ��'- „rI ,,, `•. v
�` .. cte‘ � 'i:Z1-Ny ,�

���
MSHCP Conserved Lands
► 4',...t,...:1,..`'fit` ; y.,=_ ,� a.y �. .
�
i -"--���� ��\`'� �i �. r '. � '`� �' �`1"02'4r,
���
PQP Conserved Lands
;.�
_..I•� "` %1 ,.„ 41*- r....• -' .
a ,.` _q+� N. _ r N.isov t.���•1►L'j
�`' r? of .. atl� �� Y 1y1 ,: :

Il 6 y-` - ..rte .-.kw 4f - . y,��' . � �
i �S _ ~ ;' 1124
�.' qs i
.r �� .
tit" A. -
1 .. /
•' _ p �('J. �, �^ " .fit` •_ it
..,41w,..-- '. -: ,
�"`
L.
.. tt• ♦
/ !`� .' Y >
--es,
"
�If 112'
��j'
"40.„,.. .........
, _ '
J
i �i� r y4;'Ao
_ / [
i • 7:----• ... 1
� ' 25 44 , •
1125 r+'
_ 4
Naa .
' ' •
_,
e
.�.

. ,
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (04-29-2022)
Figure 4.4-3
MSHCP Overlay Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
L-4'
L-6
L-5
. _ . _
iieaumont
•,`'"4

u - - -
L-12
.___
by
CL -22 - Existing
`CL -23
Project Site
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
Existing/Planned Developments
Proposed Core 3 (Approximate)
Core
Linkage
Non -Contiguous Habitat Block
CORE -11
\ . Constrained Linkage
1 ► General Direction of Wildlife Movement
011imestinewtaomover
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-4
Proposed Core 3 Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
_ Y

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

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

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

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

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

/gyp �;yr
''�, �� ''"� •t .

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

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

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Study Area
•—
bing'
=
• '`
it
=
.T
-
r
• tJ.'
•
•
-
+
}
-
•
�,
Tr
=ti
_
w
r - w
:inageC
1 r rainage D
'� �-outage E
I
_ i
ig1 t
.r
a
`. ..
_ a�a
•� �"'
'
-
I� 11.4....\
' 1 '•
',
i '
" prainagkG ., . 1 ;\••;' f.
i > .15 T�utary l-1' j.. '''�
;ii tom,.: $1 bUtaryl-2
2 Drainage I e Tributary 1.3
_ 3 ,. Drainage J (
r rain i ` a \ Tributary
5 \ 1 K-1
' , — .v., Drainage K
y tTributary !" ' Drainage L
- \4-/ TributaryM-1
r - . L.
v
-4 S \ Drainage M
r
r / ''/ / •
Tributary N-1 /
/ r
Drainage O ti , . \ ltib t
TributaryyO-1r \ i %r
• •"5,- rTribdta
• Drainage P ,5 , <.'
•iO `I' %1
r\ / �r
r Tributary \ 1
1 P-3 d
r \ r
r r
r �, \ Drainage Q
r a
a
r::-. : r _.___r
- .�.
-
, ; '
•
,
���-
�` '"
\ ,
, `4
.FrO
taye Road
Project Site
Proposed MSHCP Conservation (Offsite)
f
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication

CDFW Non -Riparian Stream
CDFW Riparian
No Stream Course
Width of Jurisdiction in Feet
r
■
r
r

-I. <
�*
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (06-01-2021)
Figure 4.4-6
CDFW/MSHCP Jurisdictional Delineation Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

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

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

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

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
Drainage

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

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources
bing
-I
..r -,i.-- -----
.L .
_ •`�-
.. -
t., •
L'R mminn, n:
' "`^'� 0":7--.t' --?7
,4i:f #1
' E. i
—
. •
.
-:. ,
�
Project Site
Proposed Conservation - Offsite
Existing Jack Rabbit Trail Dedication
VZ� 60 Freeway
Existing/Planned Developments
Proposed Core 3 (Approximate)
0 CalTrans 20'x20' Culvert
O CalTrans Arch Concrete Pipe (ACP)
O CalTrans Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)
• CalTrans Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)
—
Source(s): Glenn Lukos Associates (10-05-2022)
Figure 4.4-10
Proposed SR -60 Wildlife Crossings Map
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

7.0, References.

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

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

4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Cultural Setting

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. History

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. State

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

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

N M
■ ❑
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Cultural Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.5 Cultural Resources
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. o The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(f) or 5024.1.

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

4.5 Cultural Resources

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

•
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

4.6.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
A. Federal

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

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

8. State

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

C. Regional and Local

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.32 SHGC or greater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• .

Environmental Impact Report

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

0.43 2,917
37,844
Excavators
158
1 8

0.38 480
6,231
Graders
187
2 8

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

0.40 1,581
20,508
Scrapers
367
14 8

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

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

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

0.42 874
6,139
Paving Equipment
132
2 8

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

0.43 2,917
41,786
Excavators
158
1 8

0.38 480
6,880
Graders
187
2 8

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

0.40 1,581
22,644
Scrapers
367
14 8

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

0.42 874
11,711
Paving Equipment
132
2 8

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

0.43 2,917
42,574
Excavators
158
1 8

0.38 480
7,010
Graders
187
2 8

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

0.40 1,581
23,071
Scrapers
367
14 8

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

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

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

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

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

0.42 874
1,417
Paving Equipment
132
2 8

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

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

32.77 2,277
Building Construction
87 617

14.7 789,081

32.77 24,080
2023
Grading
65 29

14.7 27,710

33.79 820
Building Construction
260
617

14.7 2,358,174

33.79 69,797
Paving
130
8 14.7
15,288

33.79 452
Architectural Coating
260
124

14.7 473,928

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

33.79 1,918
Building Construction
86 766

14.7 968,377

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

34.87 1,381
Building Construction
262
766

14.7 2,950,172

34.87 84,595
Architectural Coating
235
153

14.7 528,539

34.87 15,156
2025
Building Construction
261
766

14.7 2,938,912

36.06 81,511
Architectural Coating
261
153

14.7 587,015

36.06 16,281
Paving
248
8 14.7
29,165

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

34.87 1,858
Building Construction
87 869

14.7 1,111,364

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

36.06 1,395
Building Construction
261
869

14.7 3,334,092

36.06 92,472
Paving
12 12

14.7 2,117

36.06 59
Architectural Coating
176
174

14.7 450,173

36.06 12,486
2026
Building Construction
152
869

14.7 1,941,694

37.17 52,242
Paving
152
12 14.7
26,813

37.17 721
Architectural Coating
152
174

14.7 388,786

37.17 10,460
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
277

14.7 443,837

37.17 11,942
Paving
9 8

14.7 1,058

37.17 28
Architectural Coating
39 56

14.7 32,105

37.17 864
2027
Building Construction
21 277

14.7 85,510

38.23 2,237
Paving
21 8

14.7 2,470

38.23 65
Architectural Coating
21 56

14.7 17,287

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

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

27.55 1,401
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

27.55 14,343
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

28.38 505
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

28.38 41,611
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

28.38 269
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

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

28.38 1,181
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

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

29.26 852
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

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

29.26 9,092
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

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

30.19 9,785
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

29.26 1,146
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

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

30.19 862
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

30.19 55,279
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

30.19 35
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

30.19 7,455
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

31.07 31,282
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

31.07 431
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

31.07 6,256
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

31.07 7,168
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

31.07 17
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

31.07 517
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.90 1,345
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.90 39
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

26.03 1,482
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

26.03 15,181
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

27.02 530
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

27.02 43,707
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

27.02 283
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

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

27.02 1,240
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

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

28.05 888
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

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

28.05 9,483
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

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

29.13 10,141
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

28.05 1,195
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

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

29.13 893
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

29.13 57,292
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

29.13 36
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

29.13 7,727
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

30.17 32,217
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

30.17 444
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

30.17 6,443
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

30.17 7,382
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

30.17 18
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

30.17 532
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.16 1,377
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.16 40
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

26.03 1,482
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

26.03 15,181
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

27.02 530
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

27.02 43,707
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

27.02 283
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

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

27.02 1,240
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

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

28.05 888
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

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

28.05 9,483
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

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

29.13 10,141
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

28.05 1,195
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

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

29.13 893
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

29.13 57,292
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

29.13 36
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

29.13 7,727
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

30.17 32,217
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

30.17 444
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

30.17 6,443
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

30.17 7,382
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

30.17 18
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

30.17 532
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.16 1,377
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.16 40
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

26.03 1,482
Building Construction
87 309

14.7 395,180

26.03 15,181
2023
Grading
65 15

14.7 14,333

27.02 530
Building Construction
260
309

14.7 1,180,998

27.02 43,707
Paving
130
4 14.7
7,644

27.02 283
Architectural Coating
260
62 14.7
236,964

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

27.02 1,240
Building Construction
86 383

14.7 484,189

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

28.05 888
Building Construction
262
383

14.7 1,475,086

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

28.05 9,483
2025
Building Construction
261
383

14.7 1,469,456

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

29.13 10,141
Paving
248
4 14.7
14,582

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

28.05 1,195
Building Construction
87 435

14.7 556,322

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

29.13 893
Building Construction
261
435

14.7 1,668,965

29.13 57,292
Paving
12 6

14.7 1,058

29.13 36
Architectural Coating
176
87 14.7
225,086

29.13 7,727
2026
Building Construction
152
435

14.7 971,964

30.17 32,217
Paving
152
6 14.7
13,406

30.17 444
Architectural Coating
152
87 14.7
194,393

30.17 6,443
Commercial
2026
Building Construction
109
139

14.7 222,720

30.17 7,382
Paving
9 4

14.7 529

30.17 18
Architectural Coating
39 28

14.7 16,052

30.17 532
2027
Building Construction
21 139

14.7 42,909

31.16 1,377
Paving
21 4

14.7 1,235

31.16 40
Architectural Coating
21 28

14.7 8,644

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

SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Operation

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

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

33.79 164,065
LDT1
580,294

28.38 20,446
LDT2
1,788,999

27.02 66,208
MDV
1,461,802

21.45 68,135
LHDT1
983,158

14.58 67,435
LHDT2
269,988

15.26 17,697
MHDT
934,232

10.74 86,997
HHDT
6,909,272

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

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

36.06 645,112
LDT1
2,430,899

30.19 80,516
LDT2
7,480,921

29.13 256,802
MDV
5,858,987

23.06 254,067
LHDT1
4,331,113

15.03 288,260
LHDT2
1,213,867

15.68 77,427
MHDT
3,943,068

11.07 356,296
HHDT
22,856,576

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

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

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

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

38.23 607,730
LDT1
2,424,667

31.90 75,997
LDT2
7,464,796

31.16 239,592
MDV
5,636,358

24.73 227,959
LHDT1
4,396,621

15.52 283,244
LHDT2
1,246,839

16.17 77,115
MHDT
3,991,451

11.41 349,893
HHDT
22,973,665

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

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

32.59 223,993
LDT1
762,511

27.49 27,733
LDT2
2,345,977

25.46 92,148
MDV
1,771,543

20.63 85,863
LHDT1
323,707

13.59 23,815
LHDT2
91,828

13.78 6,664
MHDT
156,127

9.09 17,176
HHDT
247,151

6.37 38,794
OBUS
8,145

6.50 1,253
UBUS
3,925

3.83 1,025
MCY
310,405

37.16 8,354
SBUS
14,588

8.00 1,823
MH
59,798

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

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

A. Federal Energy Regulations

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy
B. State Policies and Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Energy

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Energy
Table 4.6-12 City of Beaumont General Plan Applicability Analysis General Plan Policy
Consistency
Conservation and Open Space (Chapter 8)
Goal 8.1: A City with green buildings and developments that promote energy efficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section identifies and evaluates the Project's potential to result in impacts relating to geology and soils. Information presented in this section is primarily based on the following technical reports, which are included in their entirety in Technical Appendices F1, 12, 11, and F2, respectively, of this EIR:
o Kling Consulting Group, Inc (KCG). 2021. Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, 539.9 Acre Industrial/Commercial Development, Jack Rabbit Trail, Beaumont Area, Riverside County, California. July 23, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

4.7 Geology and Soils
Table 4.7-1
Major Significant Faults in the Project Site Vicinity
Fault Name
Approximate Distance from
the Project site (miles)
Maximum Event (Moment
Magnitude), Mw*
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley

3.4 7.9
S. San Andreas - San Bernardino

9.3 8.1
Pinto Mountain

20.3 7.3
Elsinore - Glenn Ivy

25.1 6.9
Elsinore - W + Glenn Ivy

25.1 7.3
Cleghorn

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

25.6 7.4
Elsinore - Temecula + Julian

26.2 7.5
Cucamonga

28.1 6.7
North Frontal (West)

29.0 7.2
Helendale - S. Lockhardt

29.7 7.4
Chino - Alt 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Slope and Instability Hazards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Paleontological Setting

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

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

A. Federal

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

8. State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Local

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

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

2. City of Beaumont General Plan
The General Plan identifies goals related to geology and soils in the Safety Element. These goals and polices 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 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Beaumont's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan that the City reviews, monitors, and updates to reflect changing conditions and new information regarding hazards faced by the City of Beaumont. The most current version is dated June 2012 (City of Beaumont, 2012). The LHMP addresses hazards associated with wildfire, flooding, earthquakes, extreme weather, insect infestation, hazardous materials incidents, blackout, transportation incidents, pipeline incidents, toxic pollution, nuclear incidents, civil unrest, and terrorism within the City of Beaumont and its sphere of influence (SOI). The LHMP identifies vulnerabilities, provides recommendations for prioritized mitigation actions, evaluates resources and identifies mitigation shortcomings, provides future mitigation planning and maintenance of the existing LHMP. The LHMP mitigation measures include:
a vulnerability assessment of City facilities, incorporation of LHMP policies and goals into the City of Beaumont General Plan, dissemination of information pertaining to the City's Emergency Response Procedures, and public awareness training (City of Beaumont, 2012).

4. City of Beaumont Municipal Code 17.11.040
The City of Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.11.040 states the requirements applicable to the preparation of a site for development. Site grading requirements shall conform to the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as may be amended by City Ordinance. This section also provides requirements for grading plans, incorporation the preliminary soils report recommendations, compaction report, and inspections.

5. City of Beaumont Building Code
The City of Beaumont Building Code is based on the CBSC and is supplemented with local amendments. The Building Code regulates the construction, alteration, repair, moving, demolition, conversion, occupancy, use, and maintenance of all buildings and structures in the City of Beaumont.

The Building Code is included in the City of Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 15.04.

6. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust)
SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) requires the implementation of best available dust control measures (BACM) during active operations capable of generating fugitive dust. The purpose of this Rule is to minimize the amount of particulate matter in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources (SCAQMD, 2019).

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

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

4.7.4 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would result in a significant impact related to geology and soils if the Project or any Project -related component would:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv. Landslides.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; or f Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, significance determinations utilized in this section are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The above -listed thresholds address the typical, adverse effects related to geology and soils that could result from implementation of the Project.

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

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

RR 7-1 The Project shall comply with CBSC (Chapter 18) (adopted by the City of Beaumont as Municipal Code Section 15.04.010) and Municipal Code Section 17.11.040, which requires development projects to evaluate and identify site -specific geologic and Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
seismic conditions. The report must provide site -specific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground -shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and design criteria, and selection of appropriate structural systems.

RR 7-2 Prior to grading plan approval and the first issuance of a grading permit for the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan development, the Project proponent shall provide evidence to the City that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for discharge of stormwater associated with construction activities.

RR 7-3 Prior to grading plan approval and the first issuance of a grading permit by the City for the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan development, the Project proponent shall submit to the City of Beaumont a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a surface water control plan and erosion -control plan citing specific measures to control erosion during the entire grading and construction period.

Additionally, the SWPPP shall identify structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sediment and nonvisible discharges from the site. BMPs to be implemented in the SWPPP may include (but shall not be limited to) the following:
• Sediment discharges from the site may be controlled by the following:
• Perimeter protection to prevent sediment discharges through silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, sand bag barriers, and compost socks. • Sediment capture and drainage control through sediment traps, storm drain inlet protection, and sediment basins.
• Velocity reduction through check dams, sediment basins, and outlet protection/velocity dissipation devices.
• Reduction in off -site sediment tracking through stabilized construction entrance/exit, construction road stabilization, and entrance/exit tire wash. • Slope interruption at permit -prescribed intervals (fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, sand bag berms, compost socks, biofilter bags).
• The construction and condition of the BMPs will be periodically inspected during construction, and repairs will be made when necessary, as required by the SWPPP. • No materials of any kind shall be placed in drainage ways. • Materials that could contribute nonvisible pollutants to stormwater must be contained, elevated, and placed in temporary storage containment areas.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
• All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be protected per RWQCB standards to eliminate any discharge from the site.

Stockpiles will be surrounding by silt fences.
• The SWPPP will include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the site during the construction phase to ensure NPDES compliance.
• Additional BMPs and erosion -control measures will be documented in the SWPPP and utilized if necessary.
• The SWPPP will be kept on -site for the entire duration of project construction and will also be available to the local RWQCB for inspection at any time.

In the event that it is not feasible to implement the above BMPs, the City of Beaumont can make a determination that other BMPs will provide equivalent or superior treatment either on or off -site.

RR 7-4 Prior to grading plan approval and issuance of a grading permit by the City of Beaumont for the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan development, the Project proponent shall receive approval from the City of Beaumont for Final Water Quality Management Plan (Final WQMP). The Final WQMP shall specifically identify pollution -prevention, site -design, source -control, and treatment -control BMPs that shall be used on -site to control predictable pollutant runoff to reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum extent practicable. Source control BMPs to be implemented in the Final WQMP may include (but shall not be limited to) those listed in Table G.1 of the Preliminary WQMP (Technical Appendix 12). Treatment -control BMPs shall include on -site detention/sand filtration basins to treat the site's runoff; these facilities shall be maintained and inspected at least twice per year and prior to October 1. Additional BMPs will be documented in the WQMP and utilized if necessary. In the event that it is not feasible to implement the BMPs identified in the Final WQMP, the City of Beaumont can make a determination that other BMPs provide equivalent or superior treatment either on or off -site.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a:

Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
A. Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault
There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project site, the Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and County Fault Hazard Zones are located within the subject site or adjacent properties (KCG, 2021). Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project site, there is no potential for the Project to directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. No impact would occur.

B. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Similar to all properties throughout southern California, the Project site is located in a seismically active area and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. The Project's buildings will be required by Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code to be constructed in accordance with the CBSC and the City of Beaumont Building Code. The CBSC and City of Beaumont Building Code provide building standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. The CBSC and City of Beaumont Building Code building standards have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) (adopted by the City of Beaumont as Municipal Code Sections 15.04.010 and 17.11.040) requires development projects to evaluate and identify site -specific geologic and seismic conditions. The report must provide site -specific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground - shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems.

As stated, a Geotechnical Report was prepared for the Project site, which is included as Technical Appendix F1 of this EIR. The Geotechnical Report complies with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the CBSC and Titles 15 and 17 of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code. In conformance with the CBSC, the City will condition the Project to comply with the site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report (see Section 5 of Technical Appendix Fl, of this EIR), including any updates thereto, as required in Regulatory Requirement RR Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
7-1. Recommendations are based on the site seismic parameters to ensure that structures are designed for earthquake induced strong ground motions in accordance with CBSC (see Section 2.5 of Technical Appendix F1). The Geotechnical Report includes requirements for: supplemental subsurface exploration, general earthwork and grading, fill placement and compaction, remedial grading, manufactured slopes, surface drainage, subdrainage, oversized rock materials, deep fill areas/settlement monitoring, preliminary foundation recommendations, retaining walls, sulfate potential, corrosion potential, preliminary pavement design, and temporary excavations. Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project's Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC and Beaumont Municipal Code and Building Code) would ensure that the impact remains less than significant. Additionally, grading plan review is required to verify that the geotechnical requirements are updated specific to the detailed rough grading plans (see Section 5.16 of Technical Appendix F1). Furthermore, as detailed in Section 5.17 of Technical Appendix F1, geotechnical observation and testing shall be conducted during the following stages of grading:
o Upon the completion of clearing and grubbing;
o During all phases of grading, including benching, backcut and key excavation, cut slope excavation, remedial removals of surficial soils, backdrain/subdrain/filter material installation and engineered fill placement;
o During Settlement Monument placement;
o During roadway subgrade preparation and compaction of roadway aggregate base; o When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading Future development accommodated by the Specific Plan would be required to have site -specific geotechnical investigation reports prepared by the Project applicant's/developer's geotechnical consultant, in accordance with the CBC and Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.1.040. The geotechnical investigations would determine seismic design parameters for the site and the proposed building type per CBC requirements. With mandatory compliance with these standard and site -specific design and construction measures, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

C. Seismic -Related Ground Failure
According to available mapping data, the Project site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone (California Geologic Survey (CGS)/California Department of Conservation) indicating a susceptibility for liquefaction potential (CGS, 2019a). However, the City of Beaumont General Plan Safety Element and the RCIT identify the Project site as located within an area of "moderate" susceptibility to liquefaction (RCIT, 2021; City of Beaumont, 2020a). Therefore, the Project site appears to be susceptible to relatively minor amounts of liquefaction settlement. The magnitudes of seismic —induced liquefaction settlement are relatively minor and somewhat localized, occurring Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
generally below depths of 40 feet where groundwater was encountered in the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site (KCG, 2021).

The Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project calculated the total earthquake -induced liquefaction settlement potential using the LiquefyPro software. The evaluation was based on the site class and adjusted peak ground acceleration of 0.705g, as shown in Section 2.5 of the Geotechnical Report, Technical Appendix F1, of this EIR (KCG, 2021). The analysis indicates that the estimated settlement due to earthquake -induced liquefaction is approximately 0.00 inches to approximately one (1) inch.

Differential settlements are estimated to be negligible to approximately a little over 0.5 inches over a distance of 50 feet. Due to the lack of a shallow static groundwater level and the materials encountered, the materials are not susceptible to significant seismic induced ground failure. With the proposed fill depths and loads imposed from the fill, liquefaction is considered to be negligible (KCG, 2021).

Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. Implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with liquefaction; thus, the potential for lateral spreading is low (KCG, 2021). Accordingly, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the requirements of the CBSC and City of Beaumont Municipal Code and Building Code. As stated previously, the City will condition the Project to comply with the site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in Section 5 of Technical Appendix F1 of this EIR, which will further reduce the risk of seismic -related ground failure due (see Regulatory Requirement RR -1). Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project's Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC and Beaumont Municipal Code and Building Code) would ensure that the impact remains less than significant. As such, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismic -related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

D. Landslides
The Project site is not identified within a State of California designated Hazard Zone for Slope Instability (CGS, 2019a). Information available in the Riverside County Safety Element indicates that portions of the site may have "low" to "moderate" susceptibility for seismic induced slope instability (Riverside County, 2019b).

Approximate 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill slopes of variable height are proposed throughout the site. The Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix F1 of this EIR) provided an analysis of deep- seated slope stability on selected geologic cross -sections (including both cut and fill slopes) considered representative of the various proposed conceptual slope configurations. The full results of the analysis are presented in the Geotechnical Report, Section 3.2 and Appendix E. Based on the analysis, proposed Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.7 Geology and Soils
2:1 cut and fill slopes are considered grossly stable in the absence of adverse geologic conditions and considered surficially stable.

Furthermore, mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project site's Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC, Beaumont Building Code, and conditions of approval) would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on -site and abutting off -site areas. Accordingly, the Project would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? A. Construction -Related Erosion Impacts
Under existing conditions, the Project site is largely undeveloped and contains only a few remnants of past development within the Project site. As identified in Section 4.9.1 of this EIR, items related to historic use of the Project site include a water storage tank and associated valves and a concrete pad.

Development of the Project site would result in the demolition of these items and grading and construction activities would occur that would further disturb soils on the property. Disturbed soils would be subject to potential erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and building materials (e.g., existing concrete foundations) and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water.

Fill slopes constructed with granular materials derived from on -site sandstone bedrock may be susceptible to erosion. The San Timoteo Formation bedrock on the Project site was moderately hard and considered to be slightly to moderately erodible. The surficial soils including undocumented artificial fill, colluvium, and alluvium encountered are typically granular and appear to be readily erodible as evidenced by their soft to loose state and localized erosion gullies. Therefore, the erosion potential of cut slopes exposing on -site bedrock materials may range from low to medium depending on the bedrock materials exposed on the cut slope, as well as the orientation of bedding and joint planes within the slope. In general, cut slopes exposing well -indurated and/or cemented sandstones should have a low to moderate susceptibly to erosion. Friable, poorly cemented, sandstones should have a moderate to high erosion susceptibility.

Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State's General Construction Stormwater Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area (see RR 7-2). In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB's Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction -related activities (see RR 7-3). The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution — including Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
erosion/sedimentation — is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro -seeding. Lastly, the Project would be required to implement erosion and dust control measures pursuant SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and SCAQMD Rule 403 would ensure that the Project's implementation does not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil.

Further, the City will condition the Project to comply with the site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project's Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix F1 of this EIR). Mandatory compliance with the recommendations (as amended by the final Geotechnical Report) relating to cut slopes (see Section 5.5 of Technical Appendix F1), will ensure that potential impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. Therefore, erosion and loss of topsoil loss impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

8. Post -Development Erosion Impacts
Upon Project buildout, the Project site would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and conveyed off -site via an on -site storm drain system. Accordingly, the amount of erosion that occurs on the Project site would be minimized upon build out of the Project and would be reduced relative to existing conditions.

Additionally, to meet the requirements of the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit, the Project Applicant is required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is a site -specific post -construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via BMPs. The WQMP is required to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The WQMP also is required to establish a post -construction implementation and maintenance plan to ensure on -going, long-term erosion protection. Compliance with the WQMP will be required as a condition of approval for the Project, as will the long-term maintenance of erosion and sediment control features.

A Project -specific Preliminary WQMP was prepared for the Project (see Technical Appendix 12 of this EIR) to identify appropriate BMPs for the Project. A Final Project -specific WQMP that is in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Project -Specific WQMP shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits (see Regulatory Requirement RR 7-4 in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR). As identified in the Project's Preliminary WQMP, low - impact development (LID) BMPs (e.g., bioretention and biotreatment) are proposed to detain stormwater on -site for runoff mitigation. Additionally, the Project's Preliminary WQMP identifies site - design BMPs, structural and non-structural source -control BMPs, and treatment -control BMPs that would be implemented for the Project.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ O Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
As detailed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the Project's drainage system would route runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces to the four detention basins. Each basin would provide stormwater treatment and peak flow mitigation for each of their respective tributaries.

The detention basins would remove pollutants from runoff, including sediment, thereby providing first - flush capture, detention, and filtration of stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the Project site. Additionally, basin vegetation provides erosion protection, which is required to maintained regularly (PECW, 2022b).

By complying with the NPDES permit and WQMP requirements, the Project would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil.

Threshold c: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As discussed under Threshold b, above, the Project's proposed 2:1 cut and fill slopes are considered grossly stable and surficially stable; and, as discussed under Threshold a, above, impacts relating to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction would be less than significant.

The undocumented artificial fill soils, colluvium, and loose younger alluvial soils present on the Project site have settlement potential and portions of the younger alluvium are prone to hydro -collapse. As part of the Geotechnical Report, KCG determined that the volume of change of excavated on -site materials upon excavation and placement as engineered fill will vary with bedrock and/or soil type, location, and compaction effort. Alluvial soils would have the greatest shrinkage potential and could shrink up to 15%. Further, laboratory testing indicates that the young alluvium on -site exhibits a collapse potential of zero to as much as 4.5%, which is respectively considered slight to moderate (KCG, 2021). The majority of the settlement is expected to occur during grading and within a few months thereafter. However, the majority of the alluvium that is potentially susceptible to seismic induced dry settlement would be removed during remedial earthwork and would also be subject to additional settlement during construction due to fill loads, which would reduce the settlement significantly.

Further, the City will condition the Project to comply with the site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project's Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix Fl of this EIR). Recommendations in the preliminary Geotechnical Report and any updates thereto relating to settlement monitoring (i.e., installation of surface monuments), fill placement, and compaction (see Section 5.3 and 5.9 of Technical Appendix F1), will ensure that potential impacts related to settlement, soil shrinkage, and collapse would be less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

4.7 Geology and Soils
Threshold d: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
As discussed above under Section 4.7.1E.4 due to the limited presence of siltstone and clay layers, and the known presence of mostly sandstone generated soils within the Project site, the expansion potential of on -site soils is considered low. However, siltstone/clay layers subject to excavation would produce clayey soils, which would be expansive. Minor amounts of siltstone exist on -site, however, if siltstone is placed at pad grade, it would produce moderately expansive soils. Section 5 of Technical Appendix F1 of this EIR, requires evaluation of potential expansive soil at completion of grading pursuant to ASTM D-4829, to ensure that expansive soils would not create a substantial risk to life or property.

Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project's Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC and Beaumont Municipal Code and Building Code) would ensure that the impact remains less than significant.

Threshold e: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The Project is designed to connect to the City -owned municipal wastewater conveyance system, with wastewater treatment services supplied by the City of Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no impact related to the use of or performance of septic tanks and/or alternative wastewater systems would occur.

Threshold f Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Since the City of Beaumont does not have specific guidelines for the preservation of paleontological resources, Riverside County guidelines for rating the paleontological sensitivity of geologic formations are employed. A paleontological sensitivity map generated by the Riverside County Land Information System in February 2021 ranks most of the Project area as having a High Paleontological Potential/Sensitivity (High A), The category "High A" indicates that fossils are likely to be encountered at the surface and may be impacted during excavation by construction activities.

The Project site has a high potential to contain paleontological resources due to the: 1) presence of the middle Pliocene to lower Pleistocene fossiliferous middle member of the San Timoteo Formation, 2) recovery of fossils from the formation within and nearby the Project site boundaries, and 3) "High" Paleontological Sensitivity assigned to the San Timoteo Formation for yielding paleontological resources. The San Timoteo Formation also extends below the cover of young alluvial fan deposits and would be exposed during grading activities. Areas having a low paleontological sensitivity are represented by Holocene (modern) young alluvial fan deposits lining the drainage valleys. Generally, these sedimentary deposits do not yield fossils, being too young.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
A paleontological literature review and collections and records search was performed by the Los Angeles County Museum (LACM). The review did not find any documented paleontological localities (fossil sites) held by the LACM from within the Project site; however, six localities held by the LACM are just west of the southernmost portion of the Project site. Significant fossil vertebrate remains "may well" be encountered in any digging in the San Timoteo Formation, as well as in older Quaternary alluvial deposits that may underlie the younger alluvium mapped on the surface within the Project site.

However, based upon the topography and the distribution of the various Quaternary deposits in the Project vicinity, it is more likely that the San Timoteo Formation underlies the young alluvial fan deposits within the Project site.

Therefore, there is a high probably of encountering paleontological resources during grading activities that impact the San Timoteo Formation and Quaternary older alluvial fan sediments. Impacts to paleontological resources would be significant.

4.7.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
As noted in the foregoing analysis, all potential Project -related direct and indirect impacts related to geology and soils would be addressed through mandatory conformance with the CBSC, City of Beaumont Municipal Code, other standard regulatory requirements, and the site -specific recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Report contained within Technical Appendix F1 of this EIR, including any updates thereto, as required in Regulatory Requirement RR 7-1.

With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions addressed under Thresholds "a," "c," "d," and "e" are unique to the Project site, and inherently restricted to the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed development project, are specific to conditions on the subject property, and are not influenced or exacerbated by the geologic and/or soils hazards that may occur on other, off -site properties. Because of 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 effects to or from other properties.

As discussed under Threshold "b," regulatory requirements mandate that the Project incorporate design measures during construction and long-term operation to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts. Because the Project and other projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and long- term operation, cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant.

The Project's potential to result in impacts to paleontological resources (Threshold "f') is similar to that of other projects located in the region that are underlain by alluvial fan deposits. The Project - Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
specific PRIMP, required as Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-3, would ensure Project - specific paleontological impacts are reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the Project's contribution to a cumulatively -considerable impacts is less than significant.

4.7.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less -than -Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial direct or indirect adverse effects related to liquefaction or fault rupture. The Project site is subject to seismic ground shaking associated with earthquakes; however, mandatory compliance with local and State regulatory requirements and building codes would ensure that the Project reduces the impact associated with seismic ground shaking to less than significant.

Threshold b: Less Than Significant Impact. Geological soil units on -site are considered to be erodible.

However, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain a NPDES permit for construction activities and adhere to a SWPPP. Following completion of development, the Project's owner or operator would be required by law to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) during operation.

Mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the site -specific geotechnical report and compliance with the SWPPP and SCAQMD Rule 403 would preclude substantial erosion impacts in the long-term.

Threshold c: Less Than Significant Impact. There is marginal potential for the Project's construction or operation to cause, or be impacted by, on- or off -site landslides or lateral spreading. As discussed under Threshold a, above, impacts relating to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction would be less than significant. Potential hazards associated with settlement and collapse would be precluded through mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the site -specific geotechnical report during Project construction.

Threshold d: Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site contains soils with marginal susceptibility to expansion. Potential hazards associated with expansive soils would be precluded through mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the site -specific geotechnical report during Project construction; therefore, the Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils.

Threshold e: No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed to be installed on the Project site. Accordingly, no impact would occur associated with soil compatibility for wastewater disposal systems.

Threshold f: Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is identified as within an area of "High" Paleontological Sensitivity; therefore, implementation of the Project would result in potentially significant impacts associated with paleontological resources. The Project could result in direct impacts to paleontological resources within the Project site should such resources be discovered during Project - related construction activities.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils

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

MM 4.7-1
MM 4.7-2
MM 4.7-3
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist. Paleontological monitoring of the young alluvial fan deposits is not warranted, since their potential to yield fossils is low. However, if, during earth disturbance activities, the San Timoteo Foundation or older Quaternary alluvial deposits is exposed beneath the overlying young alluvial fan deposits, monitoring should be initiated during periods in which the San Timoteo Formation or older Quaternary alluvial deposits will be impacted. Monitoring shall be conducted during any grading or excavation in undisturbed sediments of the San Timoteo Foundation.

Complete grading plans for each phase shall be made available to the City of Beaumont and to the paleontologist/ paleontological monitor prior to the start of any earth -moving activities for each phase.

Prior to initiation of any grading and/or excavation activities, a preconstruction meeting shall be held and attended by the paleontologist of record, representatives of the grading contractor and subcontractors, the project owner or developer, and a representative of the lead agency. The nature of potential paleontological resources shall be discussed, as well as the protocol that is to be implemented following discovery of any fossiliferous materials.

Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner.

Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. Fossil discovery and salvage shall occur as follows:
a) Notification of fossil discoveries shall be immediately reported by the paleontologist or paleontological monitor to the City of Beaumont, the Project owner or developer, and the consulting company overseeing development of the Project.
b) Paleontological salvage shall complete with professional standard protocols, as detailed in Section VII, Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program in Technical Appendix F2 of this Draft EIR.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Geology and Soils
c) In the laboratory, individual fossils shall be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks are repaired, and the specimen, if needed, is stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B- 72).
d) The recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen -washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
e) The prepared specimens, along with relevant information, shall be curated into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center in Hemet, California). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. The City of Beaumont may select another repository if it so desires. f) A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location, shall be prepared. The report, when submitted to, and accepted by, the City of Beaumont, shall signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any potential non-renewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.

4.7.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold f: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through 4.7-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's potential impacts to important paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant. The Project's contribution to cumulative impacts would likewise be reduced to less than significant.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

N M
■ ❑
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The analysis in this section is based on a technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads titled, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, dated October 13, 2022 and included as Technical Appendix G to this EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2022d). The technical report and analysis in this section assess the proposed Project's potential to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could contribute to global climate change and its associated environmental effects.

4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Introduction to Global Climate Change
Global Climate Change (GCC) is a change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth's atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the Project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental consequences, the Project's Greenhouse Gas Analysis will evaluate the potential for the Project to have a cumulatively significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.

GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth's atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth's atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth's atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth's temperature.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions B. Greenhouse Gases
GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, creating a GHG effect that results in global warming and climate change. For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N20 were evaluated because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.

GHGs have varying Global Warming Potential (GWP) values. GWP of a GHG indicates the amount of warming a gas causes over a given period of time and represents the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. CO2 is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 4.8-1, GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs. As shown in the table below, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s scientific and socio-economic assessment on climate change, range from 1 for CO2 to 23,900 for Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) and the GWP for the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report range from 1 for CO2 to 23,500 for SF6.

Table 4.8-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs Gas
Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential (100 -year time horizon)
Second Assessment
Report
5th Assessment Report
CO2
See*
1 1
CH4

12.4 21
28 N20
121
310
265
HFC-23 * *
222
11,700
12,400
HFC-134a

13.4 1,300
1,300
HFC-152a

1.5 140
138
SF6
3,200
23,900
23,500
*As per Appendix 8.A of IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, no single lifetime can be given. ** HFC = Hydrofluorocarbon
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 2-2)
Provided below is a description of the common gases that contribute to GCC. For more information about these gases and their associated human health effects, refer to Section 2.3 of Technical Appendix G to this EIR and the reference sources cited therein.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless GHG that is emitted from natural and artificial sources. Natural sources include: the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources include: the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

Since the industrial revolution began in the mid -1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has increased dramatically. As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, they are around Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30%. Exposure to CO2 in high concentrations can cause human health effects, but outdoor levels are not high enough to adversely affect human health. • Methane (CH4) is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less than CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years) compared to other GHGs. Methane has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other artificial sources include fossil -fuel combustion and biomass burning. No human health effects are known to occur from atmospheric exposure to methane; however, methane is an asphyxiant that may displace oxygen in enclosed spaces. • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) concentrations began to rise in the atmosphere at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration was 314 parts per billion (ppb). Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. N2O is used as an aerosol spray propellant, (e.g., in whipped cream bottles), in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and in race cars. N2O can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the Earth's surface, and be converted to other compounds by chemical reaction. N2O can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. In small doses, it is considered harmless.

However, in some cases, heavy and extended use can cause brain damage. • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in CH4 or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth's surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 and have no natural source. CFCs were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents. After discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and was extremely successful, so much so that levels of the major CFCs are now remaining steady or declining. However, due to their long atmospheric lifetime, some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order largest to smallest), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC-152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC-23 emissions. HFC-134a emissions are increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. No human health effects are known to result from exposure to HFCs, which are used for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are primarily produced for aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture. PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. No human health effects are known to result from exposure to PFCs.
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It also has the highest GWP of any gas evaluated (22,800). The EPA indicates that concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. In high concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it displaces the oxygen needed for breathing. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. • Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) is a colorless gas with a distinctly moldy odor. The World Resources Institute indicates that NF3 has a 100 -year GWP of 17,200. NF3 is used in industrial processes and is produced in the manufacturing of semiconductors, Liquid Crystal Display panels, types of solar panels, and chemical lasers. Long-term or repeated exposure may affect the liver and kidneys and may cause fluorosis.

C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories

1. Global
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions are tracked by the IPCC for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non -Annex I). Human GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2018. Based on the latest available data, the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 28,768,439 gigagram (Gg) CO2e, as shown in Table 4.8-2, Top GHG- Producing Countries and the European Union. As noted in Table 4.8-2, the United States (U.S.), as a single country, was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2018.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-2 Top GHG-Producing Countries and the European Union Emitting Countries
GHG Emissions (Gg CO2e)
China
12,300,200
Unites States
6,676,650
European Union (28 -member countries)
4,232,274
India
2,220,123
Russian Federation
2,100,850
Japan
1,238,343
Total
28,768,439
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 2-3)

2. State of California
California has significantly slowed the rate GHG emissions growth due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls, but is still a contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2019 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2018 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 425.3 million metric tons of CO2e per year (MMTCO2e/yr) or 425,320 Gg CO2e (6.37% of the total United States GHG emissions). Based on data published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California's per capita (9.12 metric tons) GHG emissions are much less than the nationwide per capita (15.8 metric ton) average
D. Effects of Climate Change in California
Climate change will likely cause shifts in weather patterns, potentially resulting in changes in rainfall levels and volumes, resulting in flooding or droughts, increased wildfire risk, impair habitats for threatened and endangered species, and cause food shortages in some areas, among other climate change results. The potential health effects related directly to the emissions of CO2, CH4, and N20 as they relate to development projects such as the Project are still being debated in the scientific community. Their cumulative effects to GCC have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health. Increases in Earth's ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing more heat -related deaths. Scientists also purport those higher ambient temperatures could affect disease survival rates and result in more widespread disease. As shown in Exhibit 4.8-1, Summary of Projected Global Warming Impact, 2070-2099 (As Compared With 1961-1990), climate change impacts in California have the potential to include, but are not limited to, the following areas:

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Exhbit 4.3-1: Summary of Projected Global Warming Impact, 2070-2099 (As Compared With 1961-1990)
13 F
12 11
Higher
Higher _ I , F 10 Warming Range
Emissions ($-10.5°F)
Scenario
Medium- I' I 7 Medium
High Ix Warming Range
Emissions {5.5-s0F}
Scenario
Lower
Emissions
Scenario 1 1 • T Lower
Warming Range
(3-5.5°F)
• 90% loss in Sierra snowpack
• 22-30 inches of sea level rise
• 3-4 times as many heat wave days in major urban centers • 4-6 times as many heat -related deaths in major urban centers • 2.5 times more critically dry years
• 20% increase in energy demand
• 70-80% loss in Sierra snow pack
• 14-22 inches of sea level rise
• 2.5-4times as many heat wave days in major urban centers • 2-6 times as many heat -related deaths in major urban centers • 75-85% increase in days conducive to ozone formation" • 2-2.5 times more critically dry years
• 10% increase in electricity demand
• 30% decrease in forest yields (pine)
• 55% increase in the expected risk of large wildfires
• 30-60% loss in Sierra snowpack
• 6-14 inches of sea level rise
• 2-2.5 times as many heat wave days in major urban centers • 2-3 times as many heat -related deaths in major urban centers • 25-35% increase in days conducive to ozone formation* • UJpto1.5times more critically dry years
• 3-6% increase in electricity demand
• 7-14% decrease in forest yields (pine)
• 10-3596 increase in the risk of large wildfires
"For high ozone locations in Los Argc4es (Riverside) and the San baquhr Valley{ Visalia} Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Exhibit 2-A)

1. Public Health
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35% under the lower warming range to 75 to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditions. The Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90°F in Los Angeles and 95°F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2. Water Resources
A vast network of artificial reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the State from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system from northern California relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months.

Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, and result in a drier Colorado River, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90%.

Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could also adversely affect winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing and snowboarding.

The State's water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California's estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within several areas including Orange County and the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta — a major fresh water supply.

3. Agriculture
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25% of the water supply needed. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water -use efficiency, California's farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures could aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less -than -optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California's agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts.

In addition, continued GCC could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions gaps. Continued GCC could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests' breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

4. Effects on Species
GCC has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity. As the existing climate throughout California changes, the ranges of various plant and wildlife species could shift or shrink, as rainfall and temperature changes occur. This could result in impacts to the viability of certain species in various habitats throughout the state and of certain threatened and endangered species.

5. Rising Sea Levels
Although not relevant to the Project area, rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the State's coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate low-lying coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range scenario, sea level could rise 12-14 inches.

4.8.2 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 during the EIR Scoping Meeting that pertain to greenhouse gas emissions.

Two comments related to GHG emissions from South Coast AQMD and the Center of Biological Diversity were received on October 1 and 6, 2020, respectively. South Coast AQMD requested that the air quality analysis for the Project use the guidance and methods of the South Coast AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook and website and to provide mitigation measures that the Lead Agency should consider in reducing potential impacts to air quality. The Center of Biological Diversity requested that the EIR thoroughly disclose, analyze, and mitigate to the extent feasible the Project's anticipated GHG emissions.

4.8.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following is a brief description of the international, federal, State, and regional environmental laws and related regulations related to GHG emissions. For more information, refer to Section 2.7 of Technical Appendix G of this EIR and the reference sources cited therein.

A. International

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In 1988, the United Nations (U.N.) and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the scientific, technical, and Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EU Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human -induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

2. United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change (Convention) On March 21, 1994, the U.S. joined a number of countries around the world in signing the Convention.

Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

3. International Climate Change Treaties
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the Convention. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post -Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen; however, the Committee identified the long-term goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) above pre -industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The UN Climate Change Committee held additional meetings in Durban, South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The meetings are gradually gaining consensus among participants on individual climate change issues.

On September 23, 2014 more than 100 Heads of State and Government and leaders from the private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the U.N. At the Summit, heads of government, business and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience.

Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a landmark agreement on December 12, 2015 in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the two -decade -old global climate effort. Culminating a four-year negotiating round, the new treaty ends the strict differentiation between developed and developing countries that characterized earlier efforts, replacing it with a common framework that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts and to strengthen them in the years ahead. This includes, for the first time, requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts and undergo international review.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The agreement and a companion decision by parties were the key outcomes of the conference, known as the 21St session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP). Together, the Paris Agreement and the accompanying COP decision:
• Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2°C, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C;
• Establish binding commitments by all parties to make "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them; • Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and "progress made in implementing and achieving" their NDCs, and to undergo international review; • Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that they will "represent a progression" beyond previous ones; • Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too;
• Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025; • Extend a mechanism to address "loss and damage" resulting from climate change, which explicitly will not "involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;" • Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid "double counting;" and
• Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country's NDC (C2ES 2015a) (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), 2015).

On November 4, 2019, the Trump administration formally notified the U.N. that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. It should be noted that withdrawal will be effective one year after notification in 2020. On February 19, 2021, The U.S. officially rejoined the Paris Agreement.

8. Federal

1. Federal Regulation and the Clean Air Act
Prior to the last decade, there have been no concrete federal regulations of GHGs or major planning for climate change adaptation. The following are actions regarding direct and indirect regulations by the federal government concerning GHGs and fuel efficiency.

Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007

■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 U.S. 497 (2007), decided on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court (U.S. Court) found that four GHGs, including CO2, are air pollutants subject to regulation under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court held that the EPA Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed GHGs— CO2, CH4, N20, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well -mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in section 2.7.1 "Clean Vehicles" in Technical Appendix G of this EIR.

2. Mandatory Reporting of GHGs
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the U.S. and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) or more of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA.

C. State

1. Executive Order 5-3-05
Then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007