Banning City Council
August 27, 2024

RESOLUTION 2024-133

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,700 FOR CEQA RELATED BIOLOGICAL AND

PALEONTOLOGICAL MONITORING AND REPORTING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF

CHARLES STREET AND LINCOLN STREET NON-POTABLE WATER BOOSTER STATIONS WHEREAS, construction activities for the Charles Street and Lincoln Street Non-Potable Water Booster Stations projects (“Projects”) are expected to commence by the end of the year; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution 2022-123 approving a Funding Agreement with the Riverside County in the amount of $5,049,202 for the delivery of Charles Street and Lincoln Street Non-Potable Water Booster Pump Station construction projects; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023-05 UA approving the award of a Professional Services Agreement to Albert A. Webb Associates (“WEBB”) for the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and environmental clearance documents as required to comply with ARPA funding requirements for the Charles Street and Lincoln Street Non-Water Booster Stations projects; and WHEREAS, as a result of the CEQA documentation preparation by WEBB, Biological Monitoring and Paleontological Monitoring/Reporting were identified in the report as critical mitigating measures to be undertaken during the construction of the two booster station projects; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, City staff requested a proposal from WEBB to address the additional Biological and Paleontological Monitoring/Reporting activities needed for compliance with ARPA funding related CEQA requirements. Webb’s proposal for these services is in the amount of $79,700; and
WHEREAS, the scope of work includes Biological Monitoring of the Montgomery Creek and associated Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat; and Paleontological Monitoring/Reporting of any fossils such as buried remains and other prehistoric organisms at the construction sites; and
WHEREAS, the original Professional Services Agreement with WEBB to prepare CEQA documentation recently expired, and a new agreement is needed to provide Biological and Paleontological Monitoring/Reporting services during the construction phase of the Projects; and WHEREAS, the award of a new Professional Services Agreement to WEBB as a sole source is necessary in order to avoid unnecessary delays in the project schedule; and WHEREAS, an appropriation from the Water Capital Facilities Fund 661 to Account No. 661-6300-471.33-11 in the amount of $79,700 is necessary to fund the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates.
543
Resolution 2024-133

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A.

Webb and Associates for the CEQA Construction Monitoring for a two (2) year term in an amount of $79,700 and subsequent amendments to extend the Agreement for up to three (3) additional one (1) year terms upon satisfactory performance, with a total not-to-exceed amount of $79,700 over five (5) years.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to make non-substantive changes to the Professional Services Agreement and to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb and Associates on behalf of the City Council.

SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
544
Resolution 2024-133

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-133, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
545
Resolution 2024-133

EXHIBIT A
Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb and Associates 546
-1-
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (C01062) FOR CEQA

COMPLIANCE BOOSTER STATIONS BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF
BANNING AND ALBERT A WEBB ASSOCIATES, INC.

THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this day: ___________________, (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF BANNING, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and Albert A. Webb Associates, Inc., a Corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City has sought by a proposal for the performance of the services for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for two projects and as further defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.

B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by City to perform those services.

C. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.

D. Pursuant to the City of Banning’s Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services.

In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, which services may be referred to herein as the “Services” hereunder. As a material inducement to City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the Services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the Services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all Services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the Services required hereunder and that all materials will be of good quality, and fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional 547
-2-
standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.

1.2 Contract Documents and Exhibits.

This Agreement includes the Request for Proposal and Consultant’s accepted proposal (“Contract Documents”), both of which are on file with the City and incorporated herein by this general reference as though fully set forth herein. Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Exhibit B (Special Requirements), Exhibit C (Schedule of Compensation), and Exhibit D (Schedule of Performance) also constitute a part of this Agreement and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Except as set forth in Section 1.10 regarding Exhibit B, this Agreement controls over the Contract Documents and the provisions in Exhibits A, B and C.

1.3 Compliance with Law.

Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered, and shall render all Services hereunder in accordance therewith.

1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.

Consultant shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, at its sole cost and expense, all necessary licenses, permits, certificates and approvals required by law for the performance of Services under this Agreement, including a City business license. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for all fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and which arise from or are necessary for Consultant’s performance of the Services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents, against all such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.

1.5 Familiarity with Services.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant: (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the Scope of Services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities and any difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. If the Services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions existing therein, prior to commencement of Services hereunder. Should Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the Services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (defined in Section 1.12. A).

1.6 Prevention of Loss and Damages.

Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the Term (defined in Section 3.4) to furnish continuous protection to the work product, and the equipment, materials, papers, 548
-3-
documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the Services by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.

1.7 Further Responsibilities of Parties.

Both Parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both Parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonable necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither Party shall be responsible to perform the Services of the other.

1.8 Additional Services.

City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the Services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra services beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or to make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from the Services. No such extra services may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to Consultant, which written order incorporates therein an adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum (as defined in Section

2.1), and/or (ii) the Schedule of Performance, (as defined in Section 3.2), and which written order is approved in writing by Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum, or $25,000, whichever is less; or in the Schedule of Performance of up to one hundred eighty (180) days may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to Services which are specifically set forth in the Scope of Services or which are reasonably contemplated therein. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the Services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor.

1.9 Facilities and Equipment.

Except as otherwise provided, Consultant shall, at its own cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space (“City Facilities”), as City deems, in its sole discretion, to be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of City. The location, quality, and time of furnishing City Facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be required to furnish any facilities that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to a computer, long distance telephone, network data, internet or other communication charges, vehicles and reproduction facilities.

1.10 Special Requirements.

Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit B and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit B shall govern. 549
-4-

1.11 Corrections.

In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth in Article 4, and Sections 1.4, 1.13,

5.3, 5.4, and 6.3, Consultant shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the Services which may be disclosed during City’s review of Consultant’s report or plans. Should Consultant fail to make such correction(s) in a reasonably timely manner, such correction(s) may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Consultant. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction(s) from any retention amount held by City, or may withhold payment otherwise owed Consultant under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction(s), as provided in Section 6.3.

1.12 Party Representatives.

A. Contract Officer: For the purposes of this Agreement, the Contract Officer shall be the City Manager, or such other person designated in writing by the City Manager (“Contract Officer”). Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

B. Principals and Personnel of Consultant.
1) Consultant Representative: The following principal of Consultant is hereby designated as being the Consultant Representative authorized to act on Consultant’s behalf regarding the Services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

Name Title
Stephanie Standerfer Vice President
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing Consultant Representative were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing Consultant Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Consultant Representative. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Consultant Representative may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced or reassigned by Consultant without the express written approval of City. It shall be Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the Services, and Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. 2) Consultant’s Personnel: Consultant has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the Services required under this Agreement. All of the Services required under this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the Services shall be qualified to perform such Services. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and sub-contractors, if any, assigned to perform the Services required under this Agreement. 550
-5-
Consultant shall notify City of all changes in Consultant’s staff and sub-contractors, if any, assigned to perform the Services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires to reassign any staff or sub-contractor of Consultant, City shall give notice as set forth in Section 8.1. Consultant shall, immediately upon the receipt of the notice to re-assign staff from City, reassign such person or persons.

1.13 Independent Contractor.

A. Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of City.

Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City. All Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details of performing the Services. Any additional personnel performing Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.

B. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Consultant’s personnel practices. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section.

1.14 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.

The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, the Consultant Representative and employees were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.

Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the Services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this 551
-6-
Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.

ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Contract Sum.

Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, as full compensation for Services satisfactorily rendered, City shall pay Consultant at the hourly rates set forth in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. In no event shall Consultant be paid more than Seventy-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($79,700.00) (the “Contract Sum”). The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by City. Coordination of the performance of the Services with City is a critical component of the Services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending those meetings.

2.2 Method of Compensation.

The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion of the Services, (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the Services, (iii) payment for time and materials based upon Consultant’s rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, but not exceeding the Contract Sum or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.

2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.

City shall only reimburse Consultant for those actual and necessary expenses expressly set forth in Exhibit C. Reimbursable expenses may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual sub-contractor expenses of an approved sub-contractor pursuant to Section 1.14, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation.

2.4 Unauthorized Services and Expenses.

City will not pay for any Services or reimburse for any expenses incurred which are not specified in the Scope of Services, unless authorized in writing as set forth in Section 1.8 of this Agreement. City shall make payment for such authorized additional Services and expenses in accordance with Article 2 of this Agreement.

2.5 Invoices.

Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all Services performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month. Each such invoice shall contain all of the information set forth in Section III of Exhibit C to this Agreement. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the 552
-7-
Agreement. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate Services performed by more than one person.

City shall independently review each invoice submitted by Consultant to determine whether the Services performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice, except as to any charges for Services performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 6.3. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City of any invoice provided by Consultant shall not constitute waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.

2.6 Waiver.

Payment to Consultant for Services performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in Services performed by Consultant.

ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance.

Consultant shall commence the Services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all Services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference.

3.3 Force Majeure.

The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement may be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant. Such unforeseeable consequences include, but are not restricted to, acts of God or public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including City, if Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the Services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified, subject to the provisions of Section 1.8. The Contract Officer’s determination (or the City Council’s determination, in the event the period of enforced delay exceeds the period specified in Section

1.8) shall be final and conclusive upon the Parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant 553
-8-
be entitled to recover damages against City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused; Consultant’s sole remedy shall be the extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

3.4 Term.

The Term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date through December 31, 2026, unless sooner terminated as provided in Article 6 of this Agreement or extended as provided in Sections 1.8 and 3.3 of this Agreement. Maximum term and any subsequent amendment or modification shall not exceed five (5) years.

ARTICLE 4. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

4.1 Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance.

Consultant shall procure and at all times during the term of this Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, insurance as follows:

A. Commercial General Liability Insurance with a minimum limit of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage and a general aggregate limit of $2,000,000.00 per project or location. If Consultant is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so that Consultant and its managers, members, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds.

B. Automobile Liability Insurance for any owned, non-owned or hired vehicle used in connection with the performance of this Agreement with a combined single limit of $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. If Consultant does not use any owned, non-owned or hired vehicles in the performance of Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain a non-owned auto endorsement to the Commercial General Liability policy.

C. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a minimum limit of $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury or disease. If Consultant has no employees while performing Services under this Agreement, workers’ compensation policy is not required; however, Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees.

D. Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 per claim and in the aggregate.

4.2 Acceptability of Insurers.

The insurance policies required under this Article shall be issued by an insurer admitted to write insurance in the State of California with a rating of A:VII or better in the latest 554
-9-
edition of the A.M. Best Insurance Rating Guide. Self-insurance shall not be considered to comply with the insurance requirements under this Article.

4.3 Additional Insured.

The commercial general and automobile liability policies shall contain an endorsement naming City, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insureds.

4.4 Primary and Non-Contributing.

The insurance policies required under this Article shall apply on a primary noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self-insurance available to City. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, employees, agents or volunteers, shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

4.5 Consultant’s Waiver of Subrogation.

The insurance policies required under this Article shall not prohibit Consultant and Consultant’s employees, agents or sub-contractors from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives all rights of subrogation against City.

4.6 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions.

Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At City’s option, Consultant shall either reduce or eliminate the deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City; or Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and expenses.

4.7 Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage.

Consultant shall not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance policies required by this Article during the term of this Agreement. The commercial general and automobile liability policies required under this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that should the issuing insurer cancel the policy before the expiration date, the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail 30 days’ prior written notice to City. If any insurance policy required under this Article is canceled or reduced in coverage or limits, Consultant shall, within two (2) Business Days (as defined in Section 8.12) of notice from the insurer, phone, fax or notify City via certified mail, return receipt requested, of the cancellation of or changes to the policy.

4.8 City Remedy for Noncompliance.

If Consultant does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Article in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Consultant’s policies do not comply with the requirements under this Article, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Consultant’s expense, the premium thereon.

Consultant shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City, or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Consultant. 555
-10-

4.9 Evidence of Insurance.

Prior to the performance of Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish the City Clerk with a certificate or certificates of insurance and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required under this Article. The endorsements are subject to City’s approval. Consultant may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Consultant shall maintain current endorsements on file with the City Clerk.

Consultant shall provide proof to the City Clerk that insurance policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Consultant shall furnish such proof at least two (2) weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages.

4.10 Indemnity Requirements not Limiting.

Procurement of insurance by Consultant shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant’s liability or as full performance of Consultant’s duty to indemnify City under this Agreement.

4.11 Sub-contractor Insurance Requirements.

Consultant shall require each of its sub-contractors that perform Services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Article.

4.12 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend.

A. Indemnification of City.
1) To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City and its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, expenses, judgments, penalties, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys, or other professionals and all costs associated therewith and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Liabilities”), at law or in equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, sub-contractors, materialmen, consultants or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees as determined by court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Consultant shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liabilities with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by Indemnitees in connection therewith.
556
-11-
2) Consultant shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws. City may offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this subparagraph A.2. 3) Consultant shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Article from each and every sub-contractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.

If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations, Consultant shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Liabilities at law or in equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant’s sub-contractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, sub-contractors, materialmen, consultants or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant’s sub-contractor shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees as determined by court decision or by the agreement of the Parties.

B. Workers’ Compensation Acts not Limiting. Consultant’s indemnifications and obligations under this Article, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

C. Insurance Requirements not Limiting. City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may possess against Consultant because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The indemnities in this Article shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Liabilities, tax, assessment, penalty or interest asserted against City.

D. Survival of Terms. Consultant’s indemnifications and obligations under this Article shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 5. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

5.1 Service Records.

Consultant shall keep, and require sub-contractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and Services performed hereunder (the “Service Records”), as shall be necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer 557
-12-
to evaluate the performance of such Services. Any and all such Service Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such Service Records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make copies and transcripts from such Service Records. Such Service Records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the Services hereunder, and City shall have access to such Service Records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the Service Records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor in interest (“Consultant’s Successor”). If custody of the Service Records is given to Consultant’s Successor, Consultant shall give written notice to City of the transfer of the Service Records to Consultant’s Successor. The notice shall include contact information (address and telephone number) for Consultant’s Successor, and access shall be provided to City by Consultant’s Successor.

5.2 Reports.

Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the Services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that City is greatly concerned about the cost of Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the Services contemplated herein, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of that fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto.

5.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “Consultant Documents”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, sub-contractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the Consultant Documents hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed Consultant Documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted Consultant Documents without specific written authorization by Consultant will be at City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such Consultant Documents for its own use. Consultant shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied therein. All sub-contractors shall provide for assignment to City of all Consultant Documents prepared by them; and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom.

5.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.

A. All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the 558
-13-
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.

B. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or sub-contractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.

C. If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or sub-contractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.

D. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or sub-contractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any Party regarding this Agreement and the Services performed thereunder. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite the response.

ARTICLE 6. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION

6.1 California Law.

This Agreement, and any dispute arising from the relationship between the Parties to this Agreement, shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the Parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in Riverside.

6.2 Disputes; Default.

A. In the event that City determines Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any Services performed after the date of default. In addition to the provisions of Section 4.8, and the right to terminate pursuant to Section 6.7, if the City Manager determines that Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, City may serve Consultant with written notice of the default. Consultant shall have ten (10) calendar days after service upon it of the notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. 559
-14-
In the event that Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, City may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.

B. In the event of termination pursuant to this Section, City may take over the Services and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the Services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed City as provided in Section 6.3.

6.3 Retention of Funds.

Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement): (i) any payment amount of which may be in dispute hereunder or which is necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, (ii) all amounts retained pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.8, (iii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement, and (iv) all payments due or that become due to Consultant during the period that Consultant or any of its sub-contractors fail to maintain any required insurance in full force and effect, until notice is received by City that the required insurance has been restored to full force and effect and that the premiums therefore have been paid for a period satisfactory to City, as provided in Section 4.9, above. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

6.4 Waiver.

Waiver by any Party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any Party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.

Acceptance by City of any Services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting Party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.

Any waiver by either Party of any default must be in writing, and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

6.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.

Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative and the exercise by either Party 560
-15-
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other Party.

6.6 Legal Action.

In addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant must file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action against City under this Agreement.

6.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.

This Article 6 shall govern any termination of this Agreement except as specifically provided in Section 6.2 for termination for default of Consultant. City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of Consultant, the period of notice may be a shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of City, the period of notice may be a shorter time as Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all Services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where Consultant has initiated termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all Services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any Services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 6.3. In the event Consultant has initiated termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating Party need not provide the non-terminating Party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 6.2.

6.8 Attorneys’ Fees.

In any litigation or other proceeding by which a Party seeks to enforce its rights under this Agreement (whether in contract, tort or both) or seeks a declaration of any rights or obligations under this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Attorneys’ fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition the Party entitled to attorneys’ fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. 561
-16-
ARTICLE 7. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION

7.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.

No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Consultant, or Consultant’s Successor, in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or Consultant’s Successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

7.2 Conflict of Interest.

Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or sub-contractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.

No officer or employee of City shall have any direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement within the scope of Government Code section 1090, nor shall any such officer or employee make, participate in making, or use his or her official position to influence, any City decision relating to the Agreement which has a material financial effect on his or her financial interests or the financial interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and sub-contractors, if any, shall comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant’s Services under this Agreement, including the Political Reform Act (Gov. Code § 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant may perform similar services for other clients; but Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subcontractors shall not, without the Contract Officer’s prior written approval, perform services for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing services that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or sub-contractors to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute. Consultant shall incorporate a clause substantially similar to this Section into any subcontract that Consultant executes in connection with the performance of this Agreement.

7.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.

Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement.

Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and that employees 562
-17-
are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, or other protected class.

7.4 Unauthorized Aliens.

Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of Services covered by this Agreement, and should the any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.

ARTICLE 8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

8.1 Notices.

Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, bill, invoice, report or other communication required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and conclusively deemed effective: (a) on confirmed delivery by courier service or overnight delivery service during Consultant’s and City’s regular business hours; or (b) three (3) Business Days after deposit in the United States mail, by certified or registered mail, and addressed to the Party to be notified as set forth below:

If to City Attn: Art Vela
Director of Engineering
City of Banning
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, California 92220
Email: [email protected]
With a courtesy copy to: Serita R. Young, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon
350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Email: [email protected]
If to Consultant: Attn: Stephanie Standerfer
Vice President
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Email: [email protected]
563
-18-

8.2 Interpretation.

The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

8.3 Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

8.4 Integration; Amendment.

This Agreement, and all exhibits referred to in this Agreement, constitute the final, complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersede all other and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the Parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No Party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by, nor is any Party relying on, any representation or warranty except those expressly set forth in this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by Consultant and by City Council. The Parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

8.5 Severability.

In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the Parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either Party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

8.6 Mutual Cooperation.

A. City’s Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Consultant’s proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement.

B. Consultant’s Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires. 564
-19-

8.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended.

This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other person or entity may have or acquire a right by virtue of this Agreement.

8.8 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release.

The acceptance by Consultant of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Consultant for anything done, furnished or relating to Consultant’s Services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of City’s check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Consultant, its employees, sub-contractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or Services performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the Services prepared by Consultant, its employees, sub-contractors and agents.

8.9 Non-Appropriation of Funds.

Payments to be made to Consultant by City for Services performed within the current fiscal year which are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Consultant’s Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Consultant’s Services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year.

8.10 Headings.

The headings in this Agreement are included solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement or any of the rights or obligations of the Parties to this Agreement.

8.11 Word Usage.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (a) the words “shall,” “will” and “agrees” are mandatory and “may” is permissive; (b) “or” is not exclusive; and (c) “includes” or “including” are not limiting.

8.12 Business Days.
“Business Days” refers to days that the Banning City Hall is open for business.

8.13 Corporate Authority.

The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Parties hereto warrant that (i): such Party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver 565
-20-
this Agreement on behalf of that Party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such Party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which that Party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties.

8.14 Electronic Signatures.

Each Party may adopt as its signature an electronic identification consisting of a symbol or code that is affixed to or contained in each document transmitted by such Party (“electronic signature”). The Parties hereto herby agree that electronic signatures are acceptable, shall have the same force and effect under the law as original wet signatures, and shall be sufficient to verify that the Parties have executed this Agreement and such other documents transmitted by the Parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
566
-21-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF BANNING CONSULTANT
Douglas Schulze, Date
City Manager
NAME: Date
TITLE:

NAME: Date
TITLE:

ATTEST:

Tax ID No.

Caroline Patton Date
Administrative City Clerk
Address:

NOTE: PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO BIND CONTRACTING PARTY REQUIRED. APPROPRIATE

ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
567
Exhibit “A”-1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services in connection with providing CEQA Compliance – Booster Stations prepared in connection therewith:

II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products and services to City:
568
2023-0076
August 8, 2024
Mr. Art Vela, PE
Director of Public Works
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Re: Proposal for Banning NP-2 – Construction Monitoring Dear Mr. Vela:

Per your request, Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) is providing you with this proposal related to the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Banning NP-2 Project, hereinafter referred to as the Project.

As discussed during our call on July 11, 2024, you would like to contract with WEBB for services required by the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA document that pertain to biological and paleontological resources. In addition, and as requested on August 7, 2024, we are also including all required tasks to get through the end of the Project because our current contract has expired. A summary of this scope is detailed in the Scope of Services section of this proposal.

The total cost for the services described herein is $79,700. If you find this request acceptable, please issue a contract for this dollar amount. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City and look forward to hearing from you.

Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact me at (951) 320-6055.

Sincerely,
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
Eliza Laws
Senior Environmental Analyst
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 2
569

"J:\FORMAL PROPOSALS\City of Banning\20240483 - Banning NP-2 - Construction Monitoring" Scope of Services
Biological Monitoring
Under contract to WEBB, Osprey Environmental Associates (Osprey) will conduct biological monitoring during installation of the temporary exclusionary fence outlined in mitigation measure MM BIO-1. During the one-day installation, Osprey will monitor the Montgomery Creek and associated Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat to ensure the fence is placed in the correct location and prevent any impacts to the creek or sensitive habitat.

Paleontological Monitoring/ Reporting
During construction activities Paleontological monitoring and reporting will be required, as outlined in mitigation measures MM Geo-1 through MM Geo-3. Under contract to WEBB, Applied Earthworks (AE) will manage and coordinate paleontological monitors during ground-disturbing activities. AE will oversee all tasks for the Project to maintain professional and quality standards of work. AE will assess construction plans and schedules as well as sedimentary conditions to determine whether any changes to the duration and frequency of monitoring are necessary. For the purposes of this scope and fees, AE assumes a three-month period for the following tasks.

In accordance with MM Geo-2, AE’s Paleontologist will develop a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Monitoring Plan (PRMMP) that outlines the project's regulatory framework, geology, paleontological significance, and mitigation recommendations in accordance with all relevant City guidelines and/or industrywide standards. It is assumed no new records search is required. One round of revisions to minimal comments is included.

As required by MM Geo-1, AE’s Paleontologist will develop and deliver Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to construction personnel, explaining paleontological resources and protocols. A maximum of 4 hours has been allotted for in-person debriefing of the WEAP that will be held with the construction contractor and each of the construction crews working on the Project. An acknowledgement form will be provided and must be signed by all personnel and will be collected by AE.

In accordance with the PRMMP outlined in MM Geo-2, paleontological monitoring will be conducted within undisturbed alluvial sediment and as well as ground-disturbing activities in alluvial sediment exceeding four feet in depth. This scope assumes 45 consecutive workdays of monitoring by one monitor and includes cost for lodging, meals, and mileage. The daily monitoring rate exclude overtime; however, any on-site overtime required by the construction schedule will be billed. Per MM Geo-3, if significant paleontological resources are discovered in intact and undisturbed sediments, the monitor will have authority to divert, redirect or halt construction in order to delineate an exclusion zone in order to assess, collect and record the find. If no significant resources are found after approximately 50 percent of the ground disturbing activities have been completed, monitoring frequency may be reduced at the discretion of the AE Paleontologist. AE requires at least 48 hours’ notice for all monitoring. AE requires at least 72 hours’ advance notice of any changes to the construction schedule assumed herein. This scope does not include assessment of significant paleontological resources, data recovery, consultation, or salvage excavation of resources found during this monitoring.

To demonstrate compliance with MM Geo-3, a Final Paleontological Mitigation Report will be prepared upon completion of the ground-disturbing activities assuming no significant paleontological resources are discovered and no need for collection or treatment of fossils. The report will summarize monitoring methods and results, submitted electronically in PDF format.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 3
570

"J:\FORMAL PROPOSALS\City of Banning\20240483 - Banning NP-2 - Construction Monitoring" CEQA Meetings and Coordination
WEBB’s existing contract expired before the Project’s CEQA process could be completed. The remaining tasks include attendance at a second public hearing, which will be before the City Council, and filing of the Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse. WEBB’s budget includes virtual attendance at the City Council meeting and filing of the NOD after the Project has been approved.

Other Direct Expenses
This task is for the direct expense to pay the filing fees for the NOD under the CEQA Meetings and Coordination Task listed above.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 4
571

"J:\FORMAL PROPOSALS\City of Banning\20240483 - Banning NP-2 - Construction Monitoring" Requested Budget
The breakdown of the services listed above are as follows and will be billed on a “Time and Materials” basis in accordance with our schedule of fees:

CEQA Compliance Services
Biological Monitoring $2,800
Paleontological Monitoring/Reporting $72,000
CEQA Meetings and Coordination $1,480
Other Direct Expenses $3,420
Total $79,700
Task budgets are estimates and may be used interchangeably as needed but not to exceed the budget total. Any additional services requested outside this scope will be provided under separate contract addenda for additional fees. Invoices will be submitted monthly based on work completed. All invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt. If invoices remain unpaid after 30 days, work on project may cease and interest of 1.5% per month shall be charged on unpaid balances.

Charges for deliveries, printing, copying, mileage, postage, outside services, and for coordination of other services not specifically listed in the scope of work, are excluded and will be provided under separate contract addenda for additional fees.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 5
572
Exhibit “A”-6
III. In addition to the requirements of Parts I and II of this Scope of Services, during the performance of the Services, Consultant will keep City appraised through periodic status reports regarding the performance of the Services under this Agreement as set forth below and in Section 5.2, by the following means:
a. In-person meetings and/or teleconferences.
b. Email updates/questions to applicant team and City while reviews are underway.
c. Conference calls.

IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by City. If the City determines that any work product is unacceptable, for any reason, it must be revised by Consultant without additional charge to City until found satisfactory and accepted by City. 573
Exhibit “B”-1
EXHIBIT “B”

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS

1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”). Further, Consultant acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are “public works,” Consultant shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein.

2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above.

3. Consultant shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Consultant and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If the Consultant or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Consultant shall immediately notify City.

4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Consultant’s Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations.

5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement.

6. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.

7. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records.
574
Exhibit “B”-2

8. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Administrative Code Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations.

Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.

9. The Consultant shall not perform Work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. The Consultant and Subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Agreement pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If the Consultant or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, the Consultant shall immediately notify City.

10. Consultant acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work.

Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay.

11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Consultant hereby certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”
Date______________ Signature___________________________ 575
Exhibit “B”-3

12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Consultant shall be responsible for such subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Consultant shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance, including, without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure.
576
Exhibit “C”-1
EXHIBIT “C”

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks (“Tasks”) at the following rates as attached as Exhibit C-1:

II. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task sub-budget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 1.8.

III. City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:

A. Line items for all personnel describing the Services performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate.

B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.

C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation.

D. Line items for all approved sub-contractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services. 577
Exhibit “C-1”-1
EXHIBIT “C-1”
CONSULTANT’S BILLING RATE AND TASK SCHEDULE
578
Fee Schedule
SCH 2021 (07/01/2021)

CLASSIFICATION
Engineers/Project Managers/Planners/Scientists/ Rates
Assessment/Special Tax Consultants/Landscape Architects/Designers $/Hour Principal II.............................................................................................................................. 293.00 Principal I .............................................................................................................................. 279.00 Senior III ............................................................................................................................... 252.00 Senior II ................................................................................................................................ 240.00 Senior I ............................................................................................................................... 232.00 Associate III .......................................................................................................................... 208.00 Associate II ........................................................................................................................... 197.00 Associate I ............................................................................................................................ 191.00 Assistant V ........................................................................................................................... 173.00 Assistant IV .......................................................................................................................... 156.00 Assistant III ........................................................................................................................... 144.00 Assistant II ............................................................................................................................ 135.00 Assistant I ............................................................................................................................. 98.00 Survey Services
2-Person Survey Party .......................................................................................................... 302.00 1-Person Survey Party ......................................................................................................... 208.00 Inspection Services
Construction Manager II ....................................................................................................... 245.00 Construction Manager I ........................................................................................................ 185.00 Inspector (Non-Prevailing Wage) ......................................................................................... 141.00 Inspector Overtime (Non-Prevailing Wage) .......................................................................... 190.00 Inspector (Prevailing Wage) ................................................................................................. 152.00 Inspector Overtime (Prevailing Wage).................................................................................. 200.00 Administrative Services
Project Coordinator .............................................................................................................. 115.00 Administrative Assistant III ................................................................................................... 102.00 Administrative Assistant II .................................................................................................... 91.00 Administrative Assistant I ..................................................................................................... 72.00 Other Direct Expenses
Incidental Charges ............................................................................................................... Cost + 15% Postage ................................................................................................................................ Cost Subcontracted Services ....................................................................................................... Cost + 15% Special Consultant………………………………………………………………………………… 365.00 Survey/Inspection Per Diem.................................................................................................. Prevailing Wage Rate In-House Delivery Up to 1/2 hour.......................................................................................... 32.00 In-House Delivery 1/2 Hour up to 1 Hour.............................................................................. 64.00 In-House Delivery Over 1 Hour up to 2 Hours ...................................................................... 118.00 In-House Delivery Over 2 Hours ........................................................................................... 170.00 Survey/Inspection Vehicle .................................................................................................... 0.81/Mile Mileage ................................................................................................................................. 0.72/Mile Note: All rates are subject to change based on annual inflation and cost of living adjustments. Prevailing wages are dictated by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). As such, the indicated rate will remain in effect until revised rates are published by the DIR. The rate shown shall be subject to renegotiation to remain in compliance with State requirements if prevailing wages are increased by the DIR. * A FINANCE CHARGE of 1 ½ % per month (18% per year) will be added to any unpaid amount commencing thirty (30) days from invoice date. A mechanic’s lien may be filed for any invoice remaining unpaid after thirty (30) days from invoice date.

Exhibit “C-1”-2 579
Exhibit “D-1”
EXHIBIT “D”

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all Services timely, and deliver the specified tangible work products to City in accordance with the schedule attached as Exhibit D-1.

II. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the Services in accordance with Sections 1.8 and 3.3.
580
RESOLUTION 2022- 123

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF BANNING IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 5,049,202 FOR TWO NONPOTABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law a $ 1.9 trillion economic stimulus bill also known as the COVID- 19 Stimulus Package or the American Rescue Plan Act ( ARPA), with the intent to accelerate the United States recovery from the economic and health impacts of the COVID- 19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, Riverside County' s share of the American Rescue Plan funding is estimated to be $ 479 million; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved establishing the ARPA infrastructure funding category in the amount of $82 million which included an allocation of $5,049 ,202 to the City of Banning for two nonpotable water infrastructure projects.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The Funding Agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Banning is hereby approved; and
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the Funding Agreement on behalf of the City of Banning.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September 2022.

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, De
City of Banning
Resolution 2022- 123

Colleen Wallace, Mayor
City of Banning
581

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Kevin G. Ennis , City Attorney
Richards , Watson & Gershon
Resolution 2022- 123

582
CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022- 123, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of September 2022 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Happe, Minjares, Sanchez, and Wallace.

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Resolution 2022- 123

Caroline Patton, De y City Clerk
City of Banning, Californ'i~
583
RESOLUTION 2023-05UA

A RESOLUTION OF THE UTILITY AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BANNING,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE AWARD OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES FOR THE PREPARATION OF

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( CEQA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CLEARANCE DOCUMENTS FOR TWO NON-POTABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) economic stimulus bill was signed into law in an effort to accelerate recovery from the economic and health impacts created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The ARPA stimulus bill made $362 billion in funds available to eligible state, local, territorial, and tribal governments. Riverside County's share of the ARPA funding is estimated to be $ 479 million which must be obligated by December 31, 2024, and expended by December 31, 2026; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2022, City Council approved a funding agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Banning allocating $ 5,049,202 for two non-potable water infrastructure projects funded by ARPA; and WHEREAS, ARPA rules align environmental requirements with Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CSWRF) requirements, therefore both projects will have to meet CEQA Plus requirements; and
WHEREAS, as a result, on January 30, 2023, staff released a Request for Proposals to vendors on the City's approved list for On-Call Environmental and Engineering Consultant Services. In response, proposals were received by Albert A.

Webb Associates and CASC Engineering & Consulting. After evaluation of both proposals, staff recommends the award of a Professional Services Agreement to the lowest bidder, Albert A. Webb Associates in the amount of $147,200; and WHEREAS, an appropriation from the Water Capital Facilities Fund 661 to Account No. 661-6300-471.33-11 ( Professional Services) in the amount of $147,200 is necessary to fund the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Banning Utility Authority of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The Utility Authority approves the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for the Preparation of California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Plus and Environmental Clearance Documents.

SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates and to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, transfers related to the Professional Services Agreement between Albert A. Webb Associates.

Resolution 2023- 0SUA

584
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2023.

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton , Setary
Banning Utility Authority

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT: >~-
Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards , Watson & Gershon
Resolution 2023- 0SUA

Alberto Sa . ez, Chairperson
Banning ility Authority
585
CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton , Secretary of the Banning Utility Authority do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2023-05UA , was duly adopted by the Utility Authority of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of February 2023 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES : Flynn, Gonzales, Minjares, Sanchez , and Wallace.

NOES :

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN :

Resolution 2023- 05UA

Caroline Patton , Secretary
Banning Utility Authority
586
2023-0076
August 8, 2024
Mr. Art Vela, PE
Director of Public Works
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Re: Proposal for Banning NP-2 – Construction Monitoring Dear Mr. Vela:

Per your request, Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) is providing you with this proposal related to the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Banning NP-2 Project, hereinafter referred to as the Project.

As discussed during our call on July 11, 2024, you would like to contract with WEBB for services required by the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA document that pertain to biological and paleontological resources. In addition, and as requested on August 7, 2024, we are also including all required tasks to get through the end of the Project because our current contract has expired. A summary of this scope is detailed in the Scope of Services section of this proposal.

The total cost for the services described herein is $79,700. If you find this request acceptable, please issue a contract for this dollar amount. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City and look forward to hearing from you.

Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact me at (951) 320-6055.

Sincerely,
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
Eliza Laws
Senior Environmental Analyst

587

"J:\FORMAL PROPOSALS\City of Banning\20240483 - Banning NP-2 - Construction Monitoring" Scope of Services
Biological Monitoring
Under contract to WEBB, Osprey Environmental Associates (Osprey) will conduct biological monitoring during installation of the temporary exclusionary fence outlined in mitigation measure MM BIO-1. During the one-day installation, Osprey will monitor the Montgomery Creek and associated Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat to ensure the fence is placed in the correct location and prevent any impacts to the creek or sensitive habitat.

Paleontological Monitoring/ Reporting
During construction activities Paleontological monitoring and reporting will be required, as outlined in mitigation measures MM Geo-1 through MM Geo-3. Under contract to WEBB, Applied Earthworks (AE) will manage and coordinate paleontological monitors during ground-disturbing activities. AE will oversee all tasks for the Project to maintain professional and quality standards of work. AE will assess construction plans and schedules as well as sedimentary conditions to determine whether any changes to the duration and frequency of monitoring are necessary. For the purposes of this scope and fees, AE assumes a three-month period for the following tasks.

In accordance with MM Geo-2, AE’s Paleontologist will develop a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Monitoring Plan (PRMMP) that outlines the project's regulatory framework, geology, paleontological significance, and mitigation recommendations in accordance with all relevant City guidelines and/or industrywide standards. It is assumed no new records search is required. One round of revisions to minimal comments is included.

As required by MM Geo-1, AE’s Paleontologist will develop and deliver Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to construction personnel, explaining paleontological resources and protocols. A maximum of 4 hours has been allotted for in-person debriefing of the WEAP that will be held with the construction contractor and each of the construction crews working on the Project. An acknowledgement form will be provided and must be signed by all personnel and will be collected by AE.

In accordance with the PRMMP outlined in MM Geo-2, paleontological monitoring will be conducted within undisturbed alluvial sediment and as well as ground-disturbing activities in alluvial sediment exceeding four feet in depth. This scope assumes 45 consecutive workdays of monitoring by one monitor and includes cost for lodging, meals, and mileage. The daily monitoring rate exclude overtime; however, any on-site overtime required by the construction schedule will be billed. Per MM Geo-3, if significant paleontological resources are discovered in intact and undisturbed sediments, the monitor will have authority to divert, redirect or halt construction in order to delineate an exclusion zone in order to assess, collect and record the find. If no significant resources are found after approximately 50 percent of the ground disturbing activities have been completed, monitoring frequency may be reduced at the discretion of the AE Paleontologist. AE requires at least 48 hours’ notice for all monitoring. AE requires at least 72 hours’ advance notice of any changes to the construction schedule assumed herein. This scope does not include assessment of significant paleontological resources, data recovery, consultation, or salvage excavation of resources found during this monitoring.

To demonstrate compliance with MM Geo-3, a Final Paleontological Mitigation Report will be prepared upon completion of the ground-disturbing activities assuming no significant paleontological resources are discovered and no need for collection or treatment of fossils. The report will summarize monitoring methods and results, submitted electronically in PDF format. 588

"J:\FORMAL PROPOSALS\City of Banning\20240483 - Banning NP-2 - Construction Monitoring" CEQA Meetings and Coordination
WEBB’s existing contract expired before the Project’s CEQA process could be completed. The remaining tasks include attendance at a second public hearing, which will be before the City Council, and filing of the Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse. WEBB’s budget includes virtual attendance at the City Council meeting and filing of the NOD after the Project has been approved.

Other Direct Expenses
This task is for the direct expense to pay the filing fees for the NOD under the CEQA Meetings and Coordination Task listed above.
589

"J:\FORMAL PROPOSALS\City of Banning\20240483 - Banning NP-2 - Construction Monitoring" Requested Budget
The breakdown of the services listed above are as follows and will be billed on a “Time and Materials” basis in accordance with our schedule of fees:

CEQA Compliance Services
Biological Monitoring $2,800
Paleontological Monitoring/Reporting $72,000
CEQA Meetings and Coordination $1,480
Other Direct Expenses $3,420
Total $79,700
Task budgets are estimates and may be used interchangeably as needed but not to exceed the budget total. Any additional services requested outside this scope will be provided under separate contract addenda for additional fees. Invoices will be submitted monthly based on work completed. All invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt. If invoices remain unpaid after 30 days, work on project may cease and interest of 1.5% per month shall be charged on unpaid balances.

Charges for deliveries, printing, copying, mileage, postage, outside services, and for coordination of other services not specifically listed in the scope of work, are excluded and will be provided under separate contract addenda for additional fees.
590
Fee Schedule
SCH 2021 (07/01/2021)

CLASSIFICATION
Engineers/Project Managers/Planners/Scientists/ Rates
Assessment/Special Tax Consultants/Landscape Architects/Designers $/Hour Principal II.............................................................................................................................. 293.00 Principal I .............................................................................................................................. 279.00 Senior III ............................................................................................................................... 252.00 Senior II ................................................................................................................................ 240.00 Senior I ............................................................................................................................... 232.00 Associate III .......................................................................................................................... 208.00 Associate II ........................................................................................................................... 197.00 Associate I ............................................................................................................................ 191.00 Assistant V ........................................................................................................................... 173.00 Assistant IV .......................................................................................................................... 156.00 Assistant III ........................................................................................................................... 144.00 Assistant II ............................................................................................................................ 135.00 Assistant I ............................................................................................................................. 98.00 Survey Services
2-Person Survey Party .......................................................................................................... 302.00 1-Person Survey Party ......................................................................................................... 208.00 Inspection Services
Construction Manager II ....................................................................................................... 245.00 Construction Manager I ........................................................................................................ 185.00 Inspector (Non-Prevailing Wage) ......................................................................................... 141.00 Inspector Overtime (Non-Prevailing Wage) .......................................................................... 190.00 Inspector (Prevailing Wage) ................................................................................................. 152.00 Inspector Overtime (Prevailing Wage).................................................................................. 200.00 Administrative Services
Project Coordinator .............................................................................................................. 115.00 Administrative Assistant III ................................................................................................... 102.00 Administrative Assistant II .................................................................................................... 91.00 Administrative Assistant I ..................................................................................................... 72.00 Other Direct Expenses
Incidental Charges ............................................................................................................... Cost + 15% Postage ................................................................................................................................ Cost Subcontracted Services ....................................................................................................... Cost + 15% Special Consultant………………………………………………………………………………… 365.00 Survey/Inspection Per Diem.................................................................................................. Prevailing Wage Rate In-House Delivery Up to 1/2 hour.......................................................................................... 32.00 In-House Delivery 1/2 Hour up to 1 Hour.............................................................................. 64.00 In-House Delivery Over 1 Hour up to 2 Hours ...................................................................... 118.00 In-House Delivery Over 2 Hours ........................................................................................... 170.00 Survey/Inspection Vehicle .................................................................................................... 0.81/Mile Mileage ................................................................................................................................. 0.72/Mile Note: All rates are subject to change based on annual inflation and cost of living adjustments. Prevailing wages are dictated by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). As such, the indicated rate will remain in effect until revised rates are published by the DIR. The rate shown shall be subject to renegotiation to remain in compliance with State requirements if prevailing wages are increased by the DIR. * A FINANCE CHARGE of 1 ½ % per month (18% per year) will be added to any unpaid amount commencing thirty (30) days from invoice date. A mechanic’s lien may be filed for any invoice remaining unpaid after thirty (30) days from invoice date. 591

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Patrick Safari, Capital Improvement Projects Manager Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-134, Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for an Additional Amount of $17,850 for Design of the Lions Park Non-Potable Water Irrigation Conversion
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-134.

BACKGROUND:

Lions Park is an 8.9-acre facility located at 955 South Hargrave Street. The Facility consists of three baseball fields, a children’s playground and a 500 square-feet concession stand.

On June 13, 2023 City Council approved Resolution 2023-113, see attached, authorizing City representative to execute an agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources for a Proposition 1 Round 2 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant in the amount of $490,269. The grant would support the design and construction of a project that will convert the Lion’s Park irrigation system from potable to recycled water resulting in the conservation of the City's potable water supply.

On February 27, 2024 City Council approved Resolution 2024-31, see attached, awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $98,749 for the design of Lions Park Non-Potable Water Irrigation Conversion Project.

JUSTIFICATION:

For pedestrian safety and convenience, the park needs a 6 foot wide sidewalk and 3 foot high vinyl fencing along Hargrave Street, Charles Street and Westward Avenue to ensure that there is sidewalk connectivity to existing sidewalk around the park perimeter.

On July 25, 2024 at the request of City Staff, Kimley-Horn provided a change order in the amount of $17,850 for additional design services including design of 1,200 feet of sidewalk and fencing along Hargrave Street, Charles Street and Westward Avenue.

The additional design services scope of work includes data collection, plans, specifications, cost estimate and bid/construction support.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Kimley-Horn Amendment 1 in the amount of $17,850 will be funded through the existing budget of the 592
Parks Fund, Professional Services Account No. 001-3600-461.33-11.

If approved, the total contract amount with Kimley-Horn will be amended to a not-to-exceed amount of $116,599.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt Resolution 2024-134 and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-134, Kimley Horn Lions Park.docx

2. Amend No.1 PSA for Kimley Horn Design Lions Park Irrigation Conversion.docx

3. Resolution No. 2023-113.pdf

4. Resolution No. 2024-031.pdf

5. Kimley-Horn_Change Order.pdf
593
Resolution 2024-134

RESOLUTION 2024-134

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT No. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $17,850 FOR

DESIGN OF LIONS PARK NON-POTABLE WATER IRRIGATION CONVERSION WHEREAS, Lions Park is an 8.9-acre facility located at 955 South Hargrave Street. The Facility consists of three baseball fields, a children’s playground and a 500 square-feet concession stand; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023 City Council approved Resolution 2023-113 authorizing City representative to execute an agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources for a Proposition 1 Round 2 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024 City Council approved Resolution 2024-31 awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $98,749 for the design of Lions Park Non-Potable Water Irrigation Conversion Project; and WHEREAS, for pedestrian safety and convenience, the park needs a 6 foot wide sidewalk and 3 foot high vinyl fencing along Hargrave Street, Charles Street and Westward Avenue to ensure that there is sidewalk connectivity to existing sidewalk around the park perimeter; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2024 at the request of City Staff, Kimley-Horn provided a proposal in the amount of $17,850 for additional design services to include the design of 1,200 feet of sidewalk and fencing along Hargrave Street, Charles Street and Westward Avenue; and WHEREAS, the additional design services scope of work includes data collection, plans, specifications, cost estimate and bid/construction support; and WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $17,850 will be funded through Parks Fund, Professional Services Account No. 001-3600-461.33-11.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for an additional amount of $17,850 for the Design of Lions Park Non-Potable Water Irrigation Conversion Project.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Design of Lions Park Non-Potable Water Irrigation Conversion Project.

SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to make necessary non-substantive changes and to execute the Amendment No.1 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. 594
Resolution 2024-134

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
595
Resolution 2024-134

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-134, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
596
Resolution 2024-134

EXHIBIT A
Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates 597
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(C00981) FOR DESIGN LIONS PARK WATER IRRIGATION

CONVERSION PROJECT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF BANNING
AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (“Amendment No. 1”) by and between the CITY OF BANNING (“City”) and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, (“Consultant”) is effective as of this day: ______________.

RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Contract dated February 27, 2024 for the purpose of providing Engineering Design Services (“Agreement”) following an issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP 23-045) for the Engineering Design Servies for the Lions Park Water Irrigation Conversion Project, as approved by City Council Resolution 2024-31.

B. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to modify the Scope of Services, extend the Term of the Agreement to June 30, 2026, and increase the Contract Sum to One Hundred Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars ($116,599.00).

The Parties therefore agree follows:

1. Amended Terms. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.1 The Scope of Services as set forth in Section 1.1 of and Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended to include the Services set forth in Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

1.2 The maximum compensation for the Services performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 1 shall not exceed Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($17,850.00) thereby increasing the Contract Sum, as set forth in Section

2.1 of the Agreement, to One Hundred Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred NinetyNine Dollars ($116,599.00).

1.3 The Term of the Agreement, as set forth in Section 3.4 of the Agreement, is hereby extended through June 30, 2026, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided in the Agreement.

2. Miscellaneous Provisions

2.1 Continued Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 1, whenever the term 598
“Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 and the provisions of the Agreement or Amendments No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall control.

2.2 Consideration for Amendment. The parties hereby agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the modifications to the Agreement set forth in this Amendment No. 1.

2.3 Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment No. 1, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 1, and (iv) entering into this Amendment No. 1 does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which said party is bound.

2.4 Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one instrument.

2.5 Electronic Signatures. Each Party may adopt as its signature an electronic identification consisting of a symbol or code that is affixed to or contained in each document transmitted by such Party (“electronic signature”). The Parties hereto herby agree that electronic signatures are acceptable, shall have the same force and effect under the law as original wet signatures, and shall be sufficient to verify that the Parties have executed this Agreement and such other documents transmitted by the Parties.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
599
The Parties are signing this Amendment No. 1 on the date stated in the introductory clause.

CITY OF BANNING CONSULTANT
Douglas Schulze,
City Manager
NAME:

TITLE:

City Council Approval: _______________ NAME:

TITLE:

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton
Administrative City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Richards, Watson & Gershon
Serita R. Young
City Attorney
NOTE: PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO BIND CONTRACTING PARTY REQUIRED.

APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE

BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
600
RESOLUTION 2023- 113

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

DESIGNATING AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR A PROPOSITION 1 ROUND 2 INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER

MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION GRANT
WHEREAS, on January 10 , 2023 City Council adopted Resolution 2023- 11 authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the Department of Water Resources to obtain Proposition ( Prop) 1 Round 2 Integrated Regional Water Management ( IRWM) Implementation Grant funds; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 the City of Banning, on behalf of the San Gorgonio IRWM Region, submitted a Prop 1 Round 2 IRWM grant application (" Proposal"); and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2023 the City of Banning received an award notification that the submitted Proposal was awarded the requested funds in the amount of 1,912, 755.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager of the City of Banning , or designee, to prepare the necessary data, conduct investigations, file the Proposal and execute a Prop 1 Round 2 grant agreement or any amendments related thereto with the California Department of Water Resources.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2023.

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, De
City of Banning
Resolution 2023-113

601

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT :

Kevin G. Ennis, City Attorney 's Office
Richards , Watson & Gershon
Resolution 2023- 113

602
CERTIFICATION:

I, Carol ine Patton , Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning , California , do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2023-113 , was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning , California , at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of June 2023 by the following vote , to wit:

AYES: Flynn , Gonzales , Minjares , Sanchez , and Wallace .

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Resolution 2023- 113

Caroline Patton , Depu ity Clerk
City of Banning , Cal ifo rn ia
603
RESOLUTION 2024- 31

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF LIONS

PARK NON- POTABLE WATER IRRIGATION CONVERSION PROJECT TO KIMLEY- HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 98, 749 AND APPROVING A 10% CONTINGENCY FOR A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET NOT- TO-EXCEED $ 108, 623. 90 WHEREAS, Lions Park is an 8.9-acre facility located at 955 South Hargrave Street and consists of three baseball fields, a children' s playground and a 500 square- feet concession stand.

Lions Park' s existing irrigation piping is a mix of PVC, HOPE, and copper piping that has gone beyond its useful life; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, City Council approved Resolution 2023- 113 authorizing City representative to execute an agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources for a Proposition 1 Round 2 Integrated Regional Water Management ( IRWM) Implementation Grant; and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2023, the City entered into a Grant Agreement with the Department of Water Resources of the State of California to provide funding from the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 ( Proposition 1) to assist in the financing of this project; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2023, Public Works and Purchasing staff advertised a Request for Proposals ( RFP- 23- 045) on the City' s electronic bidding system ProcureNow. In response to these efforts, on January 11, 2024 the City received three ( 3) proposals; and WHEREAS, an evaluation committee was assembled to score each proposal based on qualifications, project approach, overall quality of project and pricing. As a result the highest scored proposal was submitted by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the scope of work includes the design of hundreds of feet of PVC piping including recycled water identification valve boxes, lids, and tags; recycled water signs; sprinkler head retrofits to water efficient, color- coded purple heads; and a smart irrigation controller and backflow preventer; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding an agreement to Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $98, 749 and approving a 10% contingency in the amount of $139, 805. 15 for a total " not- to-exceed" project budget of $ 108, 623. 90; and WHEREAS, the project will be funded through the IRWM Implementation Grant valued at 490, 269. The City will receive quarterly reimbursements from the State of California for the costs incurred during the design phase of the project; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of $98,749 from General Fund 001 to Account 001- 3600- 461. 90- 05 is needed to cover the consultant' s design cost while waiting for IRWM quarterly reimbursements. General Fund 001 has a current balance of $1,310, 719.

Resolution 2024- 31

604
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows :

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc ., attached hereto as Exhibit " A ," for the design of Lions Park Non- Potable Water Irrigation Conversion Project in the amount of $ 98 ,749 and approves a 10% contingency in the amount of $ 9 ,874. 90 , for a total project budget of $ 108 ,623. 90 and rejects all other bids .

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager or his designee to make necessary budget adjustments , appropriations , and transfers ; and approving change orders within the approved contingency related to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley- Horn and Associates , Inc for the design of Lions Park Non- Potable Water Irrigation Conversion Project.

SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to make necessary non- substantive changes to and to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley- Horn and Associates , Inc.

SECTION 4 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and sha ll cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions .

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February 2024.

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton , Adm i
City of Banning

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:
2>~
Serita R. Young , City Attorney
Richards , Watson & Gershon
Resolution 2024- 31

605
CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning , California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024 -31 , was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning , California , at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February 2024 by the following vote , to wit:

AYES: Flynn , Happe, Minjares, Sanchez, and Wallace.

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Resolution 2024- 31

Caroline Patton , AdrninisffitiveCitycJer k
City of Banning , California
606
kimley-horn.com 401 B. Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 744 0164 July 25, 2024
Patrick Safari
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
RE: Professional Design Services for Lions Park Water Conversion Project Dear Mr. Safari,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn” or “Consultant”) is pleased to submit this proposal to The City of Banning (“Client”) to provide design Services for the proposed development of the above referenced property (“Project”) in the City of Banning, CA. The project understanding and scope of services outlined below.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
It is understood that the City of Banning would like to design a new irrigation system for Lions Park and have it supplied by non-potable water. The existing irrigation piping infrastructure has gone beyond its useful life and the city now desires to abandon the existing lines.

The irrigation water will be supplied by a new non-potable water meter off Charles Street, and the existing fixtures requiring potable water will also be supplied by a new potable water meter off Charles Street.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Kimley-Horn is currently working on the new irrigation design for the park, and the City would like Kimley-Horn to expand their scope to include the design of a 6’ wide sidewalk along E. Westward Avenue, Hargrave Street, and Charles Street, as indicated by the blue line in Exhibit A. Where the proposed sidewalk connects to the existing sidewalk, the width will have to taper down in some instances to match the width of the existing sidewalk. The City also desires a white Master Halco Legend Vinyl fence to be installed along the inside edge of the proposed sidewalk. The proposed fence layout is indicated by the brown line in Exhibit A.

The sidewalk layout shall be set in from the curb to avoid major grading, and to support the elimination of irrigation overspray by setting the irrigation further back from the curb.

All these items are outside the scope of our original agreement dated February 27, 2024. 607
kimley-horn.com 401 B. Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 744 0164 Exhibit A: Proposed sidewalk and fence improvements
Below is an outline of the Additional Services required to perform this task:

Task 1: Initial Coordination Meeting + Data Collection & Field Review Kimley-Horn will review survey information, project photographs, and visit the work area to determine optimal locations for sidewalk and fence.

Kimley-Horn will discuss alternative alignments with the Client during a virtual meeting. 608
kimley-horn.com 401 B. Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 744 0164 Task 2: Project Management
The Kimley-Horn team project manager will provide coordination between the design team and the City while monitoring project progress and the project schedule on a regular basis. The Kimley-Horn team project manager will lead any necessary meetings with the City and project stakeholders and coordinate all monthly project invoicing. The Kimley-Horn team will provide an extensive in-house quality control review to assure plans inclusive of proper coordination between the City, affected utilities, and consultant teams.

Task 3: Alternative Exhibits
Kimley-Horn will prepare exhibits for up to two alternatives showing horizontal alignment and typical cross-sections of sidewalks and fencing relative to existing curbs for City review and selection. Crosssection exhibits will show proposed landscaping/surface treatment between the curb and sidewalk and the curb and between the sidewalk and fence.

Task 4: 90% Plans/Specifications/Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Kimley-Horn will submit 90% Plans (Horizontal Alignment Only), Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) based upon City’s selected alternative for review by the City.

Task 5: Bid Documents:

Kimley-Horn will incorporate City comments and deliver bid-ready Final Plans (Horizontal Alignment Only), Specifications, and OPCC.

Task 6: Bid Phase Services:

Kimley-Horn will respond to up to three bid phase RFIs.

Up to 2 virtual meetings are assumed prior to bid phase and up to 1 virtual meeting during the bid phase.

Task 7: Design Services During Construction:

Design Services During Construction (DSDC) is an hourly task to be able to address questions that come up during the construction process: some may be due to discoveries in the field (things that would not have been captured on a survey), to provide response to RFIs, to review proposed material submittals, additional remote meetings during construction, preparation of punch lists or observation reports, and as built drawings. The items listed would be performed on an as needed basis, as requested.

Kimley-Horn will provide design services during the construction phase on a time and materials basis up to $5,000.

SCHEDULE
Kimley-Horn will provide services as expediently as practical to meet a mutually agreed upon schedule. 609
kimley-horn.com 401 B. Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 744 0164

EXCLUSIONS

1. Geotechnical services are not included in the scope of services.

2. Additional surveying services are not included in the scope of services.

3. Vertical alignment will not be provided. Vertical alignment will be relative to top of curb.

FEE AND BILLING
Kimley-Horn will perform the services in Tasks 1 - 6 for the total lump sum labor fee below. Individual task amounts are informational only. All permitting, application, and similar project fees will be paid directly by the Client. Kimley-Horn reserves the right, as approved by the City, to reallocate amounts among tasks as necessary.

Task 7 will be billed hourly on an as-needed basis.

A breakdown of the fee for these additional services is below:

Task 1 – Initial Coordination Meeting + Data Collection & Field Review $1,650 Lump Sum Task 2 – Project Management $1,400 Lump Sum
Task 3 – Alternative Exhibits $2,700 Lump Sum
Task 4 – 90% Plans/Specs/OPCC: $3,800 Lump Sum
Task 5 – Bid Documents $1,900 Lump Sum
Task 6 – Bid Phase Services $1,400 Lump Sum
Task 7 – Design Services During Construction (DSDC) $5,000 Hourly Design Subtotal: $12,850
DSDC: $5,000 (as requested)
Total: $17,850
Lump sum labor fees will be invoiced monthly based upon the overall percentage of services performed.

As needed services will be Labor fee will be billed on an hourly basis according to our then-current rates. Reimbursable expenses will be invoiced based upon expenses incurred. Payment will be due within 30 days of your receipt of the invoice and should include the invoice number and Kimley-Horn project number.

CLOSURE
In addition to the matters set forth herein, our Agreement shall include and be subject to, and only to, our signed, executed contract dated February 27, 2024.

If you concur in all the foregoing and wish to direct us to proceed with the services, please have authorized persons execute this Agreement in the spaces provided below, and return a copy to us via email or mail. We will commence services once we are in receipt of the executed Agreement.
610
kimley-horn.com 401 B. Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 744 0164 We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to you. Please feel free to contact me at (619) 744-0164 or [email protected] if you have any questions or if you need additional information.

Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Michael P. Madsen, PLA #5798
Vice President
Agreed to this ________________ day of ___________________________, 2024 City of Banning
By:
_______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Title:
_______________________________________________________ (Date)
611

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-135, Approving an Amendment to the GARDA CL West, Inc. Purchase Order (PO 031919) to Increase the Amount by $2,000.00 for a Total of $27,0000.00 for Fiscal Year 2024 Expenditures and Approving a New Purchase Order for GARDA CL West, Inc. to Use During Fiscal Year 2025 for an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-135.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Banning and Garda CL West have been under contract with automatic 1-yr renewals and provided the City with daily armored car services/bank courier services since September 1995. City staff will go out to bid for requests for proposals this fiscal year for armored car services/bank courier services. Approving an amendment to the fiscal year 2024 Garda CL West purchase order (PO 031919) in the amount of $2,000.00 for a total purchase order of $27,000.00 will complete payment of invoices issued for armored car services during fiscal year 2024. Staff also recommends approval for a new purchase order for use in fiscal year 2025 for a not to exceed amount of $30,000.00.

JUSTIFICATION:

Armored car services provide delivery of the city's daily cash deposits. They ensure the safety of City staff and guarantee the funds are credited to city's bank account so finance department may reconcile the bank deposit totals in a timely manner.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of this action is an increase to purchase order 031919 in the amount of $2,000.00 to be paid from account 761-3100-480.23-43 from fiscal year 2024 budget and $30,000.00 to be paid from same account from fiscal year 2025 budget.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024-135, as recommended.

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-135, with modifications.

3. Do not adopt Resolution 2024-135 and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
612
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-135, GARDA CI West Services.docx

2. 10780724.pdf

3. City_of_Banning__GardaWorld_Contract_Schedul.pdf
613
Resolution 2024-135

RESOLUTION 2024-135

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GARDA CL WEST PURCHASE ORDER (31919) TO INCREASE THE PURCHASE ORDER AMOUNT BY $2,000 FOR A TOTAL OF $27,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING A NEW PURCHASE ORDER FOR GARDA CL WEST TO USE DURING FISCAL YEAR 2025 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED OF $30,000.00
WHEREAS, Garda CL West provides armored truck and bank courier services at City Hall since September 1995 on an automatic 1-yr renewable contract; and WHEREAS, as of June 30, 2024, the department needs additional funds to cover service costs for fiscal year 2024 invoices; and
WHEREAS, as of July 1, 2024, a new Purchase Order for fiscal year 2025 is being requested in the amount of $30,000.00 for armored truck/bank courier services; and WHEREAS, City staff will go out for formal bid for armored truck/bank courier services this fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the fiscal impact of the Council’s adoption of this Resolution is an increase to Purchase Order 31919 by $2,000 to be paid from fiscal year 2024 budget account 761-3100- 480.23-43 and upcoming fiscal year 2025 Purchase Order in the amount of $30,000.00 to be paid from fiscal year 2025 budget account 761-3100-480.23-43.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council approves an amendment to Purchase Order 31919 with Garda CL West to increase the purchase order amount by $2,000 for a total of $27,000 for fiscal year 2024 expenditures and approves the creation of a new fiscal year 2025 Purchase Order in the amount of $30,000.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
614
Resolution 2024-135

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
615
Resolution 2024-135

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-135, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
616
INVOICE 10780724

DATE PAGE
GARDA CL WEST, INC. LOCKBOX #233209 6/1/2024 1
2000 NW CORPORATE BOULEVARD
BOCA RATON FL 33431-7304 Now offering support in Spanish Ahora con asistencia en Español
1-855-464-2732 (1-855-GO-GARDA)
Lunes a Viernes de 8am a 5pm EST

CO CLIENT NO SERVICE MONTH CLIENT SURCHARGE PROGRAM
120 123748 June 2024 CITY OF BANNING Fuel 1.75 Security 5 STORE # SERVICE DESCRIPTION BRANCH GARDA NO AMOUNT SURCHARGE TAX TOTAL Subtotal 862.18
Sales Tax 0.00
Fuel/Ins Surch 232.79
Regulatory Surch 129.33
Total 1,224.30
TERMS: Net 30 FROM DATE OF INVOICE. 1.5% INTEREST PER MONTH (18% PER ANNUM) WILL BE CHARGED ON PAST DUE BALANCES.

GardaWorld encourages customers to make any payments hereunder by ACH or Check.

For any requests to change your service or to change billing information, please contact [email protected].

To gain access to our invoice portal, please email [email protected] with the following: Customer # and Name, Contact Name and Title, Direct Phone # and E-mail/s.

Please visit our Client Portal https://www.garda.com/client-portal for other helpful links including: Invoice Portal, Change Service Request, Billing Dispute Request, etc.

PLEASE RETURN LOWER PORTION WITH CHECK
CO CLIENT NO. CLIENT NAME INVOICE DATE TOTAL DUE AMOUNT PAID 120 123748 CITY OF BANNING 10780724 6/1/2024 1,224.30
BILL TO: REMIT TO:

CITY OF BANNING
FINANCE DEPARTMENT GARDA CL WEST, INC. LOCKBOX #233209
PO BOX 998 3209 MOMENTUM PLACE
contract C0035 CHICAGO IL 60689-0001
PO#27486 TELEPHONE:1-855-464-2732
BANNING CA 92220-0007

1000 CITY OF BANNING
99 E RAMSEY STREET
BANNING CA 92220
326305
ARMORED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ARTS01
12013
_MTWTF_ 862.18 232.79 1094.97

PLEASE SHARE THIS IMPORTANT HOLIDAY SERVICE MESSAGE WITH YOUR OPERATIONS TEAMS ** GardaWorld provides services on all holidays as outlined on the GardaWorld US Cash Services 2024 Holiday Calendar which can be found at https://www.garda.com/client-portal. Any scheduled service that falls on days listed on this calendar, will be assessed a Holiday Service Fee commensurate to contractual agreement. GardaWorld requires a minimum of four (4) weeks advance notice of Holiday service requirements. All holiday requests should be sent to your support team for timely processing. Late requests received outside the four (4)-week notice period, may not be accepted. Thank you** Next Holiday Request Deadline:

Independence Day June 4, 2024
Please contact your Support Group or email [email protected] 617

Contract: 10460 (120-123748) Page 1 of 2 Customer Initials: ____________ Schedule A

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Customer Account: CITY OF BANNING Contract: 10460 (120-123748) GARDA CL West, Inc. (“CARRIER”) and CITY OF BANNING (“CUSTOMER”) agree that effective November 01, 2021 this Schedule A amends and is incorporated into the Armored Car Service Agreement between the parties (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 01, 2017 (the “Contract Date”) by adding or amending the following Customer rates, schedules, lists, liabilities, days, Term and/or terms. (I) Term
The Agreement shall be in full force and effect from November 01, 2021 until November 01, 2022 and shall automatically renew thereafter from year to year until cancelled by either party by giving the other party written notice thereof ninety (90) days in advance of each anniversary of the Contract Date. (II) Holidays
CUSTOMER acknowledges that CARRIER observes the following Holidays for which a Holiday Service rate as set forth in Section III below shall apply.
(1) New Year’s Day (6) Juneteenth (11) Thanksgiving Day (2) Martin Luther King Day (7) Independence Day (12) Christmas Day (3) Presidents Day (8) Labor Day (13) Family Day (NV Only) (4) Easter (9) Columbus Day (14) Admission Day (NV Only) (5) Memorial Day (10) Veteran’s Day (15) Pioneer Day (UT Only) It is understood and agreed that when a Holiday falls on a Sunday the following Monday shall constitute the Holiday; when a Holiday falls on a Saturday the preceding Friday, that Saturday, or the following Monday shall constitute the Holiday.
(II) Custom Fuel Surcharge and Index
For any 3-week U.S. National Average Diesel Fuel price over $4.25 add an additional 1% for every $0.10 per gallon increase.

Price Per Gallon Surcharge
Below - $1.75 0%
$1.751-$1.85 1%
$1.851-$1.95 2%
$1.951-$2.05 3%
$2.051-$2.15 4%
$2.151-$2.25 5%
$2.251-$2.35 6%
$2.351-$2.45 7%
$2.451-$2.55 8%
$2.551-$2.65 9%
$2.651-$2.75 10%
$2.751-$2.85 11%
$2.851-$2.95 12%
$2.951-$3.05 13%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FEA008D-385A-487D-BE9A-A810F6F60D01 618

Contract: 10460 (120-123748) Page 2 of 2 Customer Initials: ____________ $3.051-$3.15 14%
$3.151-$3.25 15%
$3.251-$3.35 16%
$3.351-$3.45 17%
$3.451-$3.55 18%
$3.551-$3.65 19%
$3.651-$3.75 20%
$3.751-$3.85 21%
$3.851-$3.95 22%
$3.951-$4.05 23%
$4.051-$4.15 24%
$4.151-$4.25 25%
(II) Service Locations and Rates

**Effective
Date
**Service
Location
**Address City ST **Product **Monthly
Price
Item
Allowance
Frequency Days of
Service
Liability
Limit
11/1/21 CITY OF

BANNING
99 E RAMSEY ST BANNING CA ARMORED

TRANSPORTATION

SERVICE
$431.51 6 Weekly Tu, Th, F $200,000.00
(** Flagged for GARDA CL internal purposes only.)
The following rate schedule applies to the service locations listed above:
**Product

ARMORED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
Description Price ($) Unit of Measure
OFF DAY IN-ROUTE $ 75.6370 TR
EXCESS LIABILITY ($000's) $ 0.7160 PT
EXCESS ITEMS $ 2.9273 UN
EXCESS PREMISE TIME $ 5.7810 MN
HOLIDAY SERVICE $ 92.4008 TR
(** Flagged for GARDA CL internal purposes only.)
Carrier Customer
GARDA CL West, Inc. CITY OF BANNING
By: By:
(Signature) (Signature)
(Printed Name) (Printed Name)
Title: Title:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FEA008D-385A-487D-BE9A-A810F6F60D01 Liliana Mascorro
619

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: A'ja Wallace,
Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of (1) Resolution 2024-136, Amending the Classification and Compensation Plan; and (2) Resolution 2024-137, Revising the Confidential Employee Benefit Plan
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-136 and Resolution 2024-137.

BACKGROUND:

It is necessary to amend the City’s Classification & Compensation Plan from time to time to maintain a current plan that reflects budget amendments, organizational structure, and department needs.

Past City Council resolutions have identified the necessity to maintain a current Classification & Compensation Plan that reflects the nature of work and organizational structure, that the plan is updated to reflect both market changes and appropriate compensation for work performed.

JUSTIFICATION:

Proposed changes to the Classification and Compensation plan include:

Community Development-Planning
Un-fund and Reclassify Senior Planner (Job Code 5022) Range T81 to a Planning Manager (Job Code 5024) Range T85. This will create a Promotional opportunity for current Community Development staff.

The Senior Planner position will be unfunded to mitigate the general fund impact.

Proposed changes to the revision of the Confidential benefit plan include:

Addition of updated positions that include the Human Resources and Risk Manager (formally Human Resources Manager), Human Resources Generalist (formally Human Resources Technician), Sr.

Human Resources Generalist (formally Sr. Human Resources Technician), Administrative City Clerk (formally Deputy City Clerk), Finance Manager, Budget & Financial Analyst, Risk & Safety Analyst, Deputy Waster/Wastewater Director, Deputy Public Works Director and the Deputy Electric Director.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Position/Range Proposed Salary Range Current Salary Range Proposed Based Wage
Difference
Planning Manager/T85 $ 143,812.00 $ 0.00 $ 143,812.00
Senior Planner $ 0.00 $ 133,611.00 $ -133,611.00
620
Total Annual Fiscal
Impact
$ 10,201
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024-137 and 2024-137, as recommended

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-136 and 2024-137, with modifications

3. Do not approve Resolution 2024-137 and 2024-137 and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-136, Class and Compensation.docx

2. Exhibit A - Planning Manager Job Description.pdf

3. Resolution 2024-137, Confidential Employees Update.docx

4. Teamsters Salary Schedule.pdf
621
Resolution 2024-136

RESOLUTION 2024-136

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BANNING

TO RECLASSIFY THE SENIOR PLANNER TO THE PLANNING MANAGER WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the City’s Classification & Compensation Plan from time to time to maintain a current plan that reflects the nature of work, organizational structure, or otherwise; and
WHEREAS, the proposed reclassification of the select position set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution will provide a promotional opportunity for current Community Development staff; and
WHEREAS, changes to job descriptions, job titles, and/or pay ranges require City Council approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the following updated position control for Fiscal Year 2024-25: (1) reclassification of the Senior Planner (unfund) to Planning Manager (T85).

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
622
Resolution 2024-136

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
623
Resolution 2024-136

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-136, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
624
Resolution 2024-136

Exhibit A
Planning Manager Job Description
625

JOB DESCRIPTION
TITLE: Planning Manager JOB CODE: 5024
DEPARTMENT: Community Development EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/27/2024 REPORTS TO: Community Development Director FLSA STATUS: Exempt SUPERVISES: Various Division Staff UNION STATUS: Represented SALARY RANGE: T85 ($109,012.19-$147,480.13)

JOB PURPOSE/SUMMARY
Under general supervision, the Planning Manager will be responsible for directing, managing, and coordinating activities of the Planning Division, including the review of complex development projects, the preparation of general plan elements, specific plans, zoning ordinance amendments, and environmental documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act, and the management of assigned activities with other City departments and outside agencies, including demographic analysis and reports to state and regional planning agencies.

PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
 Leadership: Contributes to a positive work culture consistent with the City of Banning Leadership Philosophy, actively welcomes new approaches to public service and supports change and process improvements at all levels within the organization.  Teamwork: Demonstrates ability and willingness to work collaboratively with a team.  Communication: Communicates effectively with peers, supervisors, subordinates, and individuals to who service is provided.

ABOUT THE CITY OF BANNING
The City of Banning is located in the San Gorgonio Pass area of Southern California. The community of over 30,000 people is diverse with income levels slightly lower than other areas of Riverside County. However, growth and development is occurring rapidly, which will create new jobs, increase the population and raise income levels. Our employees are the most important asset in preserving our Proud History, Creating a Prosperous Tomorrow, and in responding to the community’s needs. The City provides competitive salaries, outstanding benefits and professional growth opportunities.

CITY VISION
The City of Banning promotes and supports a high quality of life that ensures a safe and friendly environment, fosters new opportunities and provides responsible, fair treatment to all and is the pride of its citizens.

Core Values - R.E.A.D.Y.
 Respectful
 Enthusiastic
 Accountable
 Dedication
 Yes-Minded
626

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification. Shown are duties intended to provide a representative summary of the major duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties.
 Assume management responsibility for services, activities, and programs of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department and other assigned responsibilities, including related contracted services; prepare and administer policies and procedures.  Provide responsible staff assistance and support to the Community Development Director, or other assigned supervisor.
 Manage and participate in the development and implementation of Community Development Department goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for each assigned division or service area.
 Coordinate activities with other City departments and public agencies, Chamber of Commerce, economic development collaboratives, and applicable affordable housing organizations.
 Recommend, within Departmental policy, appropriate service and staffing levels; monitor and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery methods and procedures; allocate resources accordingly.
 Plan, direct and coordinate the work plan of any assigned division of the Community Development Department; assign projects to subordinate staff; review and evaluate work methods and procedures; meet with staff to identify and resolve problems.  Assess and monitor work load, administrative and support systems, and internal reporting relationships; identify opportunities for improvement; direct and implement changes.  Train and evaluate department personnel; provide or coordinate staff training; work with employees to correct deficiencies; implement discipline.  Participate in the preparation and administration of the Community Development Department budget as assigned; complete revenue and expenditure projections; monitor expenditures, cost recovery, and time accounting.
 Explain and interpret Community Development Department programs, policies, and activities; negotiate and resolve sensitive and controversial issues.  Establish schedules for development performance and other provisions of disposition and development agreements with private developers for the sale and redevelopment of Cityowned property.  Oversee City agreements for professional consulting services related to assigned programs and activities; monitor contract payments; ensure contracts are within budget requirements; ensure compliance with contract obligations.
 Respond to and resolve difficult and sensitive citizen inquiries and complaints.  Monitor legislative developments related to assigned activities and programs.  Attend and participate in professional training and group meetings, stay abreast of new trends and innovations for assigned areas of responsibility; and represent City at local and regional meetings.
 Provide expertise in application and interpretation of the Municipal Code, including Zoning Code.
 Provide regular reports to the department head and City Manager on the status of development applications and assigned programs and activities.  Maintain organized and accurate records, files, and databases for entitlement processing and all other assigned areas of responsibility, including key deadlines for action and expiration dates for permits or agreements.
 May be assigned responsibility for supervising affordable housing programs and activities and including assisting with bond issues including debt service projections and analysis.  Performs other duties as assigned or required.

KNOWLEDGE OF:
 Operations, services, and activities of a comprehensive municipal community development program, including economic development, planning, affordable housing, building and safety, code compliance, and related programs.
627
 Reporting and tracking methods for development applications including entitlement review and compliance with conditions of approval.
 Reporting and tracking methods for code compliance activities.  Advanced site planning and architectural design techniques and methods.  Planning theory and social policies.
 Principles and practices of building construction, structural design, and processing procedures for land development.
 Pertinent building related codes, ordinances, and regulations enforced by the City including the Uniform Building Code, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes, zoning ordinances, general land use codes, and related City codes and state mandated regulations.  Civil engineering principles and practices.
 Geographic information system software.
 Technical report writing.
 Methods and techniques of research and analysis related to urban development and environmental impact assessment.
 Current literature, information sources, and research techniques in the field of urban planning.
 Affordable housing programs including deed restriction provisions, home mortgage financing, and related procedures.
 Principles and practices of tax increment financing.
 Principles and practices of state and federal tax credit financing, home mortgage financing, and other forms of public assistance provided for private for-profit and non-profit housing developments.
 Management skills to analyze programs, policies, and operational needs.  Negotiation strategies.
 Principles and practices of contract administration.
 Principles and practices of program development and administration.  Principles and practices of municipal budget preparation and administration.  Purchasing procedures and practices.
 Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment.
 Principles of supervision, training, and performance evaluation.  Pertinent Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations including California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
 English usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

ABILITY TO:
 Oversee and participate in the management of the Planning Division and other divisions of the Community Development Department as assigned, including responsibility for administration, development review and entitlement processing for development projects, long-range and regional planning, environmental review, and business registration.  Plan, organize, direct and coordinate the work of lower level staff.  Select, supervise, train, and evaluate staff.
 Effectively manage contracts and evaluate the work of contractors.  Delegate authority and responsibility.
 Lead and direct the operations, services, and activities of assigned areas of responsibilities including one or more divisions of the Department.
 Develop and administer division goals, objectives, and procedures.  Identify and respond to community concerns and needs related to assigned areas of responsibility.
 Prepare reports that provide essential management information on the status of development applications and code compliance activities.
 Prepare clear and concise administrative and financial reports.  Prepare and administer large and complex budgets.
 Analyze problems, identify alternative solutions, project consequences of proposed actions, and implement recommendations in support of goals.
 Operate and use modern office equipment including computer, printers, and copiers.  Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods and techniques.  Interpret and apply Federal, State, and local policies, laws, and regulations. 628
 Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.  Research, develop, and prepare ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and technical reports and associated summary data for presentation to City Council and others.  Respond tactfully, clearly, concisely, and appropriately to inquiries from the public, press, or other agencies on sensitive issues in areas of responsibility.  Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.  Maintain physical condition appropriate to the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities.
 Maintain mental capacity, which allows the capability of making sound decisions and demonstrating intellectual capabilities.
 Maintain effective audio/visual discrimination and perception to the degree necessary for the successful performance of assigned duties.
 Perform responsible and difficult administrative work involving the use of independent judgment and personal initiative.
 Attend evening meetings as required.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in urban planning, engineering, economics, business administration, public administration, or closely related field and five (5) years of progressively responsible professional planning experience; including two years of administrative and supervisory responsibility.

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS:
 Must possess or ability to obtain a valid class "C" California driver's license within thirty (30) days of appointment and maintain for the duration of employment.  AICP Certification
 Master’s Degree

PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING CONDITIONS
Essential functions may require maintaining physical condition necessary for sitting for prolonged periods of time, standing or walking; travel to various locations; light lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling; reaching; handling; use of fingers; talking; hearing; near acuity. Office and field environment; exposure to computer screens; exposure to outside atmospheric conditions.

The City of Banning is an equal opportunity employer. All employees and candidates for employment will be recruited, selected, trained, promoted, compensated and, if necessary, disciplined or terminated without regard to sex/gender, race, national origin, religion, creed, color, marital status, veteran status, age, national origin, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, genetic information or any other basis prohibited by law.

While requirements may be representative of minimum levels of knowledge, skills and abilities to perform this job successfully, the incumbent will possess the abilities or aptitudes to perform each duty proficiently.

This job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the Employer and Employee and is subject to change as the needs of the Employer and requirements of the job change. 629
Resolution 2024-137

RESOLUTION 2024-137

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR UNREPRESENTED

CONFIDENTIAL AND UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT AND REPRESENTED

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT COVERED BY EMPLOYMENT

AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act ("MMBA") and specifically Government Code Section 3502 provides that Public employees "shall have the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations and shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with a public agency"; and Government Code Section 3507.5 provides for local governments to establish rules and regulations for the designation of "confidential" employees within the scope of labor relations; and WHEREAS, the City Council established such local rules and regulations as part of its Employer-Employee Relations Resolutions, the most recent of which is the Resolution 2017-100, and which defines Confidential Employee as “an employee, who, in the course of his/her duties, has access to confidential information relating to the City's administration of employer-employee relations, or who is required to develop or present management positions with respect to employer-employee relations;" and
WHEREAS, the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution 2017-100 states that designated "Confidential employees include, but are not limited to, the Administrative Services Director/Deputy City Manager, Deputy Human Resources Director, Deputy Finance Director, Human Resources Technician, and any Executive Secretary when assigned to report to the City Manager;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council also previously approved Resolutions designating certain positions as confidential employees and providing for the salary and benefits of certain employees that are not covered by employment contracts or belonging to or represented by any employee organization; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources & Risk Manager, Deputy Finance Director, Finance Manager, Information Technology Manager, Economic Development Manager, and Public Information Officer positions are considered Unrepresented Management Confidential employees, and Executive Assistant/Support Services Manager (assigned to Police) is considered Represented Management Confidential employee and all are exempt under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and have compensation and benefits that are linked to the Teamsters MOU; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also previously approved Resolutions for Management Confidential employees’ eligibility for an additional cafeteria plan amount equal to the individual’s calculated premiums for short term disability (STD) and long term disability (LTD).

WHEREAS, the Human Resources Technicians and Executive Secretary/ Executive Assistant when assigned to the City Manager are considered Non- Management Confidential employees and are not FLSA exempt, and have compensation and benefits that are linked to The International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers - Local 47 Memorandum of Understanding for the General Employees Unit ("IBEW MOU"); and
630
Resolution 2024-137

WHEREAS, the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the non-contract, unrepresented and represented Confidential positions need to be updated to reflect changes in compensation and benefits for those positions; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the employees in the departments of Information Technology, Finance and City Clerk have access to confidential and highly sensitive information and further determined that such employees be designated as Confidential Unrepresented employees; and
WHEREAS, the Information Technology Analyst, Information Technology Analyst II, the Accountant I, Accountant II and Accounting Specialist (assigned to Payroll) and Deputy City Clerk are considered Non-Management Confidential employees and are not FLSA exempt, and have compensation and benefits that are linked to the IBEW General MOU and receive an added three percent (3%) confidential pay; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and amends the Non-Management Confidential employees to include Executive Assistant (assigned to City Manager), Human Resources Generalist, Senior Human Resources Generalist, Deputy City Clerk, Accounting Specialist (assigned to Payroll), Accountant I (assigned to Payroll), Accountant II, Senior Accountant, Information Technology Analyst, and Information Technology Analyst II.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves that the amended Non-Management Confidential employee list are not FLSA exempt, and have compensation and benefits that are linked to the IBEW General MOU and receive an added three percent (3%) confidential pay; and SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves and amends the Management Confidential employees to include Assistant City Manager, Public Information Officer, Economic Development Manager, Human Resources & Risk Manager, Risk & Safety Analyst, Administrative City Clerk, Deputy Finance Director, Finance Manager, Budget & Financial Analyst, Executive Assistant/Support Services Manager (assigned to Police), Deputy Public Works Director, Information Technology Manager, Deputy Water/Wastewater Director, and Deputy Electric Director.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves that the amended Management Confidential employee list is FLSA exempt and have compensation and benefits that are linked to the Teamsters MOU and receive an additional benefit allotment amount equal to the individual’s calculated premiums for short term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD).

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. 631
Resolution 2024-137

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
632
Resolution 2024-137

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-137, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
633
634
635
636
637
638

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-138, Approving an Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement (C00853) with Eide Bailly for External Audit Services for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Cost Overruns in the Amount of $50,000 after 23 Percent Discount
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-138.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with the engagement letter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, if unexpected circumstances arose during the audit, Eide Bailly would discuss them with the City and arrive at a new fee estimate.

During the current year audit, the time incurred to perform required audit procedures has exceeded original estimates and initial amendment in multiple audit areas, including cash, capital assets (including right of use lease and subscription-based information technology arrangement assets), interfund balances, accounts payable, long-term debt (including right of use lease and subscription-based information technology arrangement liabilities), accrued expenses, self-insurance, net position/fund balance, receivables/revenue, expenditures, pensions/OPEB, and successor agency.

JUSTIFICATION:

Throughout the audit process we have coordinated with Audit staff, researched matters, and performed a much deeper dive including detailed transaction testing, which included the identification of mis recorded items dating back several years and now requiring a prior period restatement.

Government Accounting Standard 100 – Accounting Changes and Error Corrections will be effective for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 audit and staff requested a more thorough review by the auditors in its first contract year due to prior financial misstatement items identified by Finance staff during the Fiscal Year 2021-22 audit and the upcoming implementation of said Standard.

FISCAL IMPACT:
$50,000 in Fiscal Year 2023-24. Some savings are likely to be realized in future years of the contract.

This will be appropriated and paid out of general ledger account 705-4500-412.33-11 for Professional Services.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt Resolution 2024-138 and provide alternative direction to staff. 639
BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-138 - Amendment No. 2 to PSA for External Audit Services with Eide Bailly

2. Amendment No.2 to Auditing PSA.docx
640
Resolution 2024-138

RESOLUTION 2024-138

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (C00853) WITH EIDE BAILLY FOR EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022- 23 COST OVERRUNS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 AFTER 23 PERCENT DISCOUNT WHEREAS, in accordance with the engagement letter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, if unexpected circumstances arose during the audit, Eide Bailly would discuss them with the City and arrive at a new fee estimate; and
WHEREAS, during the current year audit, the time incurred to perform required audit procedures has exceeded original estimates in multiple audit areas, including cash, capital assets (including right of use lease and subscription-based information technology arrangement assets), interfund balances, accounts payable, long-term debt (including right of use lease and subscription-based information technology arrangement liabilities), accrued expenses, selfinsurance, net position/fund balance, receivables/revenue, expenditures, pensions/OPEB, and successor agency; and
WHEREAS, throughout the audit process we have coordinated with Audit staff, researched matters, and performed a much deeper dive including detailed transaction testing, which included the identification of mis recorded items dating back several years and now requiring a prior period restatement; and
WHEREAS, Government Accounting Standard 100 – Accounting Changes and Error Corrections will be effective for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 audit and staff requested a more thorough review by the auditors in its first contract year due to prior financial misstatement items identified by Finance staff during the Fiscal Year 2021-22 audit and the upcoming implementation of said Standard; and
WHEREAS, based on the estimated additional time necessary to perform and complete the audit work, Eide Bailly is proposing an amendment and requesting an overage of $50,000 for this fiscal year’s audit, which includes a proposed fee amendment discount of 23 percent on the overage.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council approves Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with Eide Bailly, attached as Exhibit A, for a not-to-exceed total of $50,000 for Amendment No. 2 and authorizes the City Manager to make necessary non-substantive changes and to execute said Amendment No. 2.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. 641
Resolution 2024-138

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
642
Resolution 2024-138

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-138, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
643
Resolution 2024-138

EXHIBIT A
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with Eide Bailly for External Audit Services 644
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(C00853) FOR FINANCIAL AUDITING SERVICES BY AND

BETWEEN CITY OF BANNING AND EIDE BAILLY LLP
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (“Amendment No. 2”) by and between the CITY OF BANNING (“City”) and Eide Bailly LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership (“Consultant”) is effective as of this day: ______________.

RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Contract dated July 28, 2023 for the purpose of providing Financial Auditing Services (“Agreement”) following the Request for Proposals #23-029, as approved by City Council Resolution 2023-128.

B. City and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement dated May 14, 2024 to modify the Scope of Services and increase the Contract Sum by One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($145,000.00), as approved by City Council Resolution 2024-72.

C. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to modify the Scope of Services and increase the Contract Sum by Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).

The Parties therefore agree follows:

1. Amended Terms. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.1 The Scope of Services as set forth in Section 1.1 of and Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended to include the Services set forth in Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

1.2 The maximum compensation for the Services performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 2 shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) thereby increasing the Contract Sum, as set forth in Section 2.1 of the Agreement, to Five Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars ($586,873.00).

2. Miscellaneous Provisions

2.1 Continued Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 2, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 2, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 and No.2. In the event of a conflict between the 645
provisions of this Amendment No. 2 and the provisions of the Agreement or Amendment No. 1 thru 2, the provisions of this Amendment No. 2 shall control.

2.2 Consideration for Amendment. The parties hereby agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the modifications to the Agreement set forth in this Amendment No. 2.

2.3 Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment No. 2, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 2, and (iv) entering into this Amendment No. 2 does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which said party is bound.

2.4 Counterparts. This Amendment No. 2 may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one instrument.

2.5 Electronic Signatures. Each Party may adopt as its signature an electronic identification consisting of a symbol or code that is affixed to or contained in each document transmitted by such Party (“electronic signature”). The Parties hereto herby agree that electronic signatures are acceptable, shall have the same force and effect under the law as original wet signatures, and shall be sufficient to verify that the Parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 and such other documents transmitted by the Parties.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
646
The Parties are signing this Amendment No. 2 on the date stated in the introductory clause.

CITY OF BANNING CONSULTANT
Douglas Schulze,
City Manager
NAME:

TITLE:

City Council Approval: _______________ NAME:

TITLE:

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton
Administrative City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Richards, Watson & Gershon
Serita R. Young
City Attorney
NOTE: PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO BIND CONTRACTING PARTY REQUIRED.

APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE

BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
647
ATTACHMENT “1”
648
649
650

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Notification that The City is Changing its Availability Period from 60 Days to 90 Days for Eligible Revenues under the Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

The City has historically reported a 60-day lookback period for revenues earned by fiscal year-end. So revenues earned by fiscal year-end and received by August 29th of the following fiscal year are included in the prior year revenues. Anything earned but not collected by August 29th would be recorded as Unearned Revenue (liability) and an Accounts Receivable (asset).

JUSTIFICATION:

The determination of the Availability Period is generally a matter of professional judgment. The City contracts with HdL Companies for Business License Taxes and Transient Occupancy Taxes collections.

Those items will no longer be collected in the existing 60-day lookback period. HdL bills the month after revenue is earned and allows a month for payment and remits to the City the month after collecting. This makes June revenues uncollectable within the existing availability period. Cannabis tax is due 60-days after fiscal year-end (after quarter-end starting in Fiscal Year 2024-25). Any late payments would not be counted as revenue for the year earned with a 60-day lookback period. This makes the more accurate timeframe for collectability 90 days.

The City is moving to a 90-day availability period for all eligible revenue sources. The City will continue to comply with mandated exceptions: 60-days for property taxes, and immediate recognition required for increases in the fair value of investments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None, but it will better align revenues to the year earned and alleviate some reoccurring unearned revenue items.

ALTERNATIVES:

None.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:
651
No
652

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Emery Papp, Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-140, Approving EA 24-0051, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Non-Potable Water Storage Reservoir that is 24-Feet in Diameter and 21-Feet Tall with a Capacity of Approximately 61,000 Gallons, Associated Appurtenances, Onsite Access Road, and the Construction and Operation of a New Booster Pump Station Designed for the Future Ultimate Flow of 2,500 Gallons Per Minute (GPM). The Proposed Reservoir and Booster Station will be Located on a Portion of Accessor's Parcel Number (APN) 538-280-001 that is Approximately 7.51 Acres. The Project Site is Located on a City-Owned Property within the Open Space-Parks (OS-P) Zoning District and is Generally Located on the South Side of West Lincoln Street and East of 22nd Street, within the City of Banning, California; and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-140.

BACKGROUND:

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies potential impacts to the environment for a Project which proposes the construction and operation of a new non-potable water storage reservoir with a capacity of approximately 61,000 gallons, associated appurtenances, on-site access road, and the construction and operation of a new booster pump station designed for the future ultimate flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The proposed Project will only utilize a small portion of the parcel it is located on. The total disturbance area during construction is approximately 1.39 acres, which includes construction staging. This is approximately 18.4 percent of the parcel. Once construction is complete, the proposed Project’s disturbance area is approximately 0.48 acres, which represents approximately 6.4 percent of the total parcel acreage.

The Project is located south of the I-10 freeway in the City of Banning and is more specifically located on vacant land south of Lincoln Street between South 22nd Street and South 16th Street within APN 538- 280-001, on a site of approximately 7.51 acres. There is an existing wood and chain link fence along the western Project site boundary. The Project site receives routine weed abatement and sits at an elevation between 2,401 to 2,403 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The General Plan Land Use designation and the Zoning classification for the subject site are the same, Open Space-Parks (OS-PA). The proposed facilities are permitted uses under the OS-PA zoning classification of the City of Banning Municipal Code (BMC) as public utility facilities. (BMC 17.20.020). 653
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The existing built environment to the north, west, and northwest generally includes residential homes.

Land to the south of the Project area is vacant and undeveloped land. Land adjacent to the Project area to the east is Montgomery Creek, followed by vacant and undeveloped properties. The built environment to the northeast consists of industrial buildings.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• County of Riverside, American Reuse Plan Act (ARPA) – funding allocation through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Final Rule
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Colorado River Region – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District – permit for backup generator Reservoir:

The proposed reservoir entails the construction of a circular above-ground, bolted steel tank measuring 24-feet in diameter with a shell height of 21 feet which will sit on an elevation of 2,404.20 amsl. The reservoir will have a capacity to store approximately 60,910 gallons of non-potable water. The reservoir will be designed in accordance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) D103 standards, which sets guidelines for the construction of welded steel water tanks. The interior of the reservoir will be factory-coated in epoxy and the exterior will be coated with polyester powder coating that will blend in with the local surrounding environment. Interior support columns and foundations will be provided as needed. The reservoir will include standard tank appurtenances such as roof vent, roof hatch and platform, exterior stairway, ladder, minimum ring wall, valves, piping, inspection hatch, level gauge and transmitter, and conduits.

Reservoir design also includes an overflow catch basin located on the southeastern side of the reservoir that is 3-feet wide and 8-feet long. From the catch basin, approximately 160 linear feet of 18-inch diameter storm drain pipeline will be installed underground and will outlet through the proposed headwall at Lincoln Street.

The reservoir will connect to the existing 24-inch diameter non-potable water transmission pipeline in Lincoln Street. Non-potable water will be diverted to the reservoir, routed to the proposed booster pump station and ultimately pumped back into the existing pipeline.

Booster Station:

The proposed booster station building will be located at the north of the reservoir at an elevation of approximately 2,403 feet above mean sea level, on a concrete slab on grade foundation with split face masonry exterior walls and tile roof. The building will be approximately 38-feet long. 24-feet wide and 12-feet tall. Roof hatches will be provided over each pump to facilitate pump removal. The building will be ventilated with a power exhaust fan and automatic air inlet wall louvers. Interior and exterior lights will be provided along with intrusion alarms and cameras.

The booster pumps will be vertical turbine pumps designed for an ultimate future flow of 2,500 gpm.

Space for three electric pumps will be provided. Two 75 horsepower (hp) pumps will be constructed (one for standby) and space for a third pump will be provided. The two pumps will be sized for existing nonpotable water demand of 1,000 gpm each and both will have variable speed pump controls. The third pump will be sized for a capacity of 1,500 gpm. The ultimate future flow of 2,500 gpm assumes three (3) pumps at 1,250 gpm each. Two (2) firm pumps and one (1) standby pump. The booster pumps will connect to the existing non-portable water transmission main located in Lincoln Street. Appurtenances for the booster station will include a motor control center, flow meter, valves, pressure transmitter, and 654
one portable diesel-fueled emergency generator that will only be used during emergencies and routine testing.

A new SCADA system will be installed on the Project site. The system will include a control panel process controller and software components to communicate with the City’s SCADA system. The SCADA antennae will be mounted on the top of the reservoir and the antennae will not extend more than five feet above the top of the reservoir.

Site Access:

Access to the Project site consists of a new asphalt driveway near the western Project site boundary that will transition to a 20-foot-wide asphalt access road leading to the reservoir and booster station. A cable railing fence will be installed near the driveway entrance, extending to the western property boundary from the northwest corner of a proposed perimeter wall that encloses the booster station building and reservoir. A 20-foot-wide swinging pipe gate will be installed across the access road, connecting to the cable railing fence. A new cable railing fence will also be installed between the western property boundary and the southwest corner of the perimeter wall; this fence will include a swinging gate for access to the rest of the parcel.

The booster station building and reservoir will be enclosed by an approximately 6-foot tall combination masonry block wall topped with a four-foot-tall tubular steel fence that is accessible on the western boundary via a 20-foot-wide sliding gate. Inside the perimeter wall, the 20-foot-wide access road is paved and bisects the two structures (the booster station building and reservoir). The area south of the access road surrounding the reservoir will be paved whereas the area north of the access road that surrounds the booster station building will include both concrete and gravel.

Lighting and Security:

Light and camera poles will be installed within the perimeter wall surrounding the booster station building and reservoir. Lighting will be shielded or downward facing to avoid light pollution or light spillage and will be installed in accordance with Section 17.24.100 (Lighting) of the City Municipal Code.

Electrical:

New electrical service will be required for the Project site and provided by the City of Banning from an existing adjacent electrical system source. The Project site is proposing to connect to an existing overhead electric pole on the north side of Lincoln Street, across from the proposed Project driveway.

The Project will require a 480/240 volt electrical system sized for two booster pumps. The new electric line will be underground, and service will include a new electrical vault and transformer. Fiber optic service to the site is also proposed with the electrical.

Drainage:

Currently, storm water generally sheet flows across the Project site in a southeasterly direction. The proposed Project improvements will increase impervious surfaces on the site and is expected to result in a negligible increase in storm water runoff that will maintain the existing drainage pattern. All on-site storm water will be captured on site in accordance with State and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. A concrete drainage swale will surround the reservoir and convey storm water to the proposed 18-inch diameter storm drain pipeline east of the perimeter wall. The runoff from the booster station area will be collected in a four-inch diameter pipeline and connect to the proposed 18-inch diameter storm drain pipeline east of the perimeter wall. Storm water discharged to the 18-inch storm drain pipeline will be conveyed off-site where it would flow east to the municipal storm drain system at Lincoln Street.

Frontage Improvements:

The Project proposes to widen the southern portion of Lincoln Street within existing right-of-way along 655
the Project frontage and create a new paved driveway for access. Pavement width will vary from approximately two to eight feet wide. The existing pavement edge will be sawcut and the surface will be ground and overlaid with new pavement. An asphalt curb will be installed at the new edge of pavement.

Construction:

Construction activities include removal of existing on-site vegetation, grading and excavation, paving, construction of the proposed facilities in addition to associated improvements and utility connections. The construction footprint is approximately 1.39 acres. Construction staging will occur on site within the construction footprint and south of the proposed reservoir as shown on Figure 5 – Project Site Plan.

During remedial grading, on-site soils will be excavated and recompacted and are expected to require approximately 317 cubic yards of import. The maximum depth of excavation is approximately six feet.

During Project construction, it is possible there would be temporary lane closures along Lincoln Street.

Construction is anticipated to take approximately 12 months and will begin in August 2024.

Maintenance:

During operations, routine maintenance will occur and may include, but is not limited to, daily maintenance vehicle trips to inspect the booster station and reservoir. Maintenance vehicles would visit the Project site during the City’s normal business hours.

Findings:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City Staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the Project as described in the IS. Based upon the findings contained in the IS, City Staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a potentially significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

Thereafter, City Staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the MND as required by law. The MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are on file with the Planning Department. The public comment period began on April 26, 2024, and was set to expire on May 27, 2024; however the deadline to submit comments was extended by one day to Tuesday, May 28, 2024 due to the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, May 27, 2024. Copies of the documents are available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, the Banning Public Library, located at 21 West Nicolet Street, Banning, California 92220, and the City of Banning website.

The Project is located outside of any MSHCP criteria cell areas and plan compliance is provided through payment of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee at the time of building permit issuance.

Planning Commission Action:

At a duly noticed public hearing held on July 10, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Banning adopted Resolution 2024-10, recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program prepared for the proposed Project. In making it's recommendation, the Planning Commission has suggested that the City Council amend the scope of work for the project to include the planting of trees or other visual buffer between the driveway access into the site from Lincoln Street and the westerly property line to obstruct the view of the tank from the neighboring residence; and that the City Council consider a mural as public art to be painted onto the non-potable reservoir. City staff is aware of the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding potential amendments to the scope of work for the Project, a contract for which will be presented to the City Council at a future date.

Environmental Determination:

Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, City Staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential 656
environmental effects of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council determine that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a potentially significant effect on the environment and that the MND was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

CEQA requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. An MMRP has been prepared in compliance with State law and the IS/MND prepared for the Project.

As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the Project area. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the City, Contractor, or a combination thereof. If during the course of Project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the Project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate. A Notice of Determination has been prepared and will be filed with the County of Riverside and the State of California.

JUSTIFICATION:

The NP-2 Reservoir and Booster Station Project is a part of the City of Banning’s expansion of the nonpotable water system identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP) (BIMP, 2018). The City’s existing customer of non-potable water (otherwise known as recycled water) is the Sun Lakes Country Club golf course. Future potential customers may include: Lions Park, Banning High School, Dysart Park, a neighborhood park and the Rancho San Gorgonio development. The proposed Project was not specifically identified in the City’s IMP; however, it is needed to provide non-potable water supplies to existing and potential customers on the west side of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approximately $113,000 was expended to prepare the IS/MND from ARPA and Water Reserve funds Other project components awarded under the Consent Calendar for the August 27, 2024 City Council Agenda include:

1. Booster Pump and Storage Reservoir Construction Award

2. Inspection and Management Services

3. Contract Amendment for Webb Associates
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024-140, as presented.

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-140, with modifications.

3. Do not adopt Resolution 2024-140 and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution_2024-140.docx

2. EA 24-0051_NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project ISMND w_appendices.pdf 657

3. Draft_MMRP_Banning_NP-2_and_Reservoir_05-14-24 (1).pdf

4. RCFCD Comment Letter.pdf

5. COB Response to RCFCD Comment Letter.pdf

6. EA 24-0051 Aerial - Combined.pdf

7. Supplemental PC Staff Report NP-2 Booster and Reservoir.docx

8. PHN_CC 08-27-2024 COB NP-2 Tank and Booster.pdf
658
Resolution 2024-140

RESOLUTION 2024-140

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA APPROVING EA 24-0051, AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR

THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW NON-POTABLE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR THAT IS 24-FEET IN DIAMETER AND 21-FEET TALL WITH A CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 61,000 GALLONS, ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES,

ONSITE ACCESS ROAD, AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW BOOSTER PUMP STATION DESIGNED FOR THE FUTURE ULTIMATE FLOW OF 2,500 GALLONS PER MINUTE (GPM). THE PROPOSED RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION WILL BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 538-280- 001 THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 7.51 ACRES. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A CITYOWNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE-PARKS (OS-P) ZONING DISTRICT AND IS

GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST LINCOLN STREET AND EAST OF 22ND STREET, WITHIN THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA; AND ADOPTING A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Banning desires to expand its non-potable water system identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP) (BIMP, 2018). The City’s existing customer of nonpotable water (otherwise known as recycled water) is the Sun Lakes Country Club golf course.

Future potential customers may include: Lions Park, Banning High School, Dysart Park, a neighborhood park and the Rancho San Gorgonio development. The proposed non-potable water storage reservoir and booster pump station project (collectively, the Project) is needed to provide non-potable water supplies to existing and potential customers on the west side of the City; and, WHEREAS, under Banning Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.24.070.A., all development proposals shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

If the proposal is determined to qualify as a project under CEQA, the project proponent may be required to submit specialized studies to determine the effect on specific resources and hazards, including, but not limited to, biological resources, cultural resources, geotechnical hazards, hydrology, air quality, noise, and traffic. No project shall be approved without first satisfying the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to BMC Section 17.04.060.C., the Planning Commission has the authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council concerning the proposed Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) (EA 24-0051) prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(f)(2) and 15070, the proposal constitutes a project as defined by CEQA and Community Development Department staff has determined, on the basis of the IS, that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment with implementation of recommended mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, an IS/MND was prepared for the Project and was made available on the City of Banning website for public review and comment for a 30-day public review and comment period prior to the public hearing beginning Friday, April 26, 2024, and concluding on Monday, May 27, 2024, which was then extended to Tuesday, May 28, 2024, due to the Memorial Day Holiday on May 27, 2024; and
659
Resolution 2024-140

WHEREAS, in accordance with the disclosure requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(g)(5), the Project site is not listed as a hazardous property as designated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on April 26, 2024, the City provided a 30-day public notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing before the Planning Commission concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project. The public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on July 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the Planning Commission considered the entirety of the Project and has adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2024-10, recommending that the City Council approve the IS/MND and the MMRP prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on August 9, 2024, the City gave public notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper, of a public hearing before the City Council concerning the IS/MND and the MMRP prepared for the Project. The public hearing notice was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the IS/MND and MMRP prepared for the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all facts stated in the preceding recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to CEQA and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

A. Pursuant to CEQA (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City Staff prepared an IS of the potential environmental effects of the Project as described in the IS. Based upon the findings contained in that the IS, City Staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a potentially significant effect on the environment and an MND was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

B. Thereafter, City Staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the MND as required by law. The MND and the MMRP are on file with the Planning Department and incorporated herein by this reference. The public comment period began on April 26, 2024, and expired on May 27 2024 which was then extended to Tuesday, May 28, 2024, due to the Memorial Day Holiday on May 27, 2024. Copies of the documents are available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, the Banning Public Library, located at 21 West Nicolet Street, Banning, California 92220, 660
Resolution 2024-140

and the City of Banning website. The City did not receive comments during the public review period.

C. In light of the whole record regarding the Project, the City Council determines and finds, in its independent judgment and analysis that: (1) the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the IS/MND and MMRP for the Project.

D. The Project is located outside of any MSHCP criteria cell areas and plan compliance is provided through payment of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee at the time of building permit issuance.

SECTION 3. The City Manager or their designee is authorized to file a Notice of Determination for Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 24-0051 in accordance with CEQA.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
661
Resolution 2024-140

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-140, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
662
Resolution 2024-140

Exhibit A
EA 2024-0051 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 663
City of Banning
Community Development Department

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)(EA 24-0051) FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW NON-POTABLE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR THAT IS 24-FEET IN DIAMETER AND 21-FEET TALL WITH A CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 61,000 GALLONS,

ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES, ON-SITE ACCESS ROAD, AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION OF A NEW BOOSTER PUMP STATION DESIGNED FOR THE FUTURE ULTIMATE FLOW OF 2,500 GALLONS PER MINUTE (GPM). THE PROPOSED RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION WILL BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 538-280-001 THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 7.51 ACRES. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A CITY-OWNED PROPERTY

WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE-PARKS (OS-P) ZONING DISTRICT AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST LINCOLN STREET AND EAST OF 22ND STREET, WITHIN THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before a Special Meeting of the City of Banning Planning Commission, to be held on Wednesday, May 29, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California, to consider an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction and operation of a new non-potable water storage reservoir that is 24-feet in diameter and 21-feet tall with a capacity of approximately 61,000 gallons, associated appurtenances, onsite access road, and the construction and operation of a new booster pump station designed for the future ultimate flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The proposed reservoir and booster station will be located on a portion of assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 538-280-001 that is approximately 7.51 acres. The project site is located on a City-owned property within the Open Space-Parks (OS-P) zoning district and is generally located on the south side of West Lincoln Street and east of 22nd Street, within the City of Banning, California.

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project is available for public review and comment for a 30-day public review and comment period prior to the public hearing beginning FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2024, and concluding MONDAY, MAY 27, 2024.

Information regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration can be obtained by contacting the City's Community Development Department at (951) 922-3125, or by visiting the following link:
https://banningca.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=60&Type=&ADID=
To observe the live meeting through your personal computer, but not participate with video or oral comments, you may use your computer or smart phone to enter the following or click on the link:
https://banninglive.viebit.com or on the Banning Government Channel on Cable Television.

All parties interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this item are invited to attend the hearing by accessing the videoconference or by sending their written comments by email to [email protected] or by mail to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Banning at 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California, 92220.

If you challenge any decision regarding the above proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission Recording Secretary prior to, at, or during the time the Planning Commission makes its recommendation on the proposal; or, you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the hearing body at, or prior to, the hearing (California Government Code, Section 65009).

BY ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF BANNING,

CALIFORNIA
Adam Rush, M.A., AICP Dated: April 23, 2024
Community Development Director Publish: April 26, 2024
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 664 665

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project
Prepared for:

City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Contact: Arturo Vela, Director of Public Works
(951) 922‐3130
Prepared by:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 686‐10707
April 24, 2024

666

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM _____________________________________________________ 1

1. Project title ___________________________________________________________________ 1

2. Lead agency name and address ___________________________________________________ 1

3. Contact person email address and phone number ____________________________________ 1

4. Project location: _______________________________________________________________ 1

5. Project sponsor’s name and address _______________________________________________ 1

6. General Plan Land Use Designations: _______________________________________________ 1

7. Zoning:_______________________________________________________________________ 1

8. Project Description:_____________________________________________________________ 1

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: ________________________________________________ 4

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ____________________________________________________________ 4

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project are requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? ______________________________________________ 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ______________________________________ 10 DETERMINATION __________________________________________________________________ 10 I. AESTHETICS ______________________________________________________________ 13 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ____________________________________ 16 III. AIR QUALITY _____________________________________________________________ 19 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ___________________________________________________ 24 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES _____________________________________________________ 31 VI. ENERGY _________________________________________________________________ 35 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ______________________________________________________ 37 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS _______________________________________________ 44 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS _______________________________________ 46 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ___________________________________________ 50 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING __________________________________________________ 55 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ______________________________________________________ 56 XIII. NOISE___________________________________________________________________ 58 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ________________________________________________ 61 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES__________________________________________________________ 62 XVI. RECREATION _____________________________________________________________ 65 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ________________________________________________________ 66 667
ii

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES_______________________________________________ 68 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS _____________________________________________ 70 XX. WILDFIRE________________________________________________________________ 73 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE _____________________________________ 75 EARLIER ANALYSES_________________________________________________________________ 77 REFERENCES ______________________________________________________________________ 77

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................5 Figure 2 – Aerial Map....................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3 – USGS Topographic Map ............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations......................................................................... 8 Figure 5 – Project Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF TABLES
Table A – Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions.................................................................... 21 Table B – LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions.............................................................................. 22 Table C ‐ Vegetation Communities Present on the Project Site ................................................................. 25 Table D ‐ Summary of Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types..................................26 Table E ‐ Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions......................................................................... 44

APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impact Memo
Appendix B Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C Cultural Resource Investigation
Appendix D Energy Tables
Appendix E.1 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E.2 Paleontological Resource Assessment

668
iii

ACRONYMS LIST
Acronym Definition
AB52 Assembly Bill 52
ACBCI Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
AE Applied Earthworks
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQ/GHG Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMC Banning Municipal Code
BMPs Best Management Practices
BTR Biological Technical Report
BSA Biological study area
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGP Construction General Stormwater Permit
CHSC California Health and Safety Code
City City of Banning
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CRI Cultural Resources Investigation
CRHR California Register Historical Resources
dB Decibels
dBA A‐Weighted Decibels
DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIC Eastern Information Center
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping Management Program
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GP City of Banning Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance GPA General Plan Amendment
669
iv

Acronym Definition
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Ha High A
Hb High B
HDR‐20 High Density Residential 20
I‐MR Industrial‐Mineral Resources
IS/MND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
ISO Insurance Service Office
LDR Low Density Residential
LST Localized Significance Threshold
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MBMI Morongo Band of Mission Indians
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDP Master Drainage Plan
MDR Medium Density Residential
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MRZ Mineral Resources Zone
MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historical Places
OS‐P Open Space – Parks
PM‐2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns in Diameter PM‐10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Diameter PQP Public quasi‐public lands
Qf Pleistocene‐age Alluvial fan of the San Gorgonio Pass Qof Older Alluvial fan
RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RTA Riverside Transit Agency
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB 743 Senate Bill 743
SF Square Feet
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
670
v

Acronym Definition
SCE Southern California Edison
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Severity Zone
VLDR Very Low Density Residential
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WEAP Workers Environmental Awareness Program
671
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project title
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir

2. Lead agency name and address
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
(951) 922‐3131

3. Contact person email address and phone number
Arturo Vela, Director of Public Works
Public Works Department
[email protected]
(951) 922‐3130

4. Project location:

The Project site is located on the south side of West Lincoln Street, within the City of Banning, California, in Riverside County, generally south of the Interstate 10 (I‐10) freeway and east of 22nd Street, as shown in Figure 1 – Vicinity Map, Figure 2 – Aerial Map and Figure 3 – USGS Topographic Map. The Project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 538‐280‐001 and is approximately

7.51 acres. The Project site is located within Township 3S, Range, 1E, Section 8, San Bernardino Base and Meridian.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address
Public Works Department
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
(951) 922‐3130

6. General Plan Land Use Designations:

The Project site has a City of Banning General Plan (GP) land use designation of Open Space – Parks (OS‐PA).

See Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations.

7. Zoning:

The Project’s zoning is the same as the City of Banning GP land use designation of OS‐PA. The proposed Project’s facilities are permitted uses under the OS‐PA designation of the City of Banning Municipal Code (BMC) (BMC, 17.20.020). See Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations.

8. Project Description:

Background
The Project is a part of the City of Banning’s (“the City”) expansion of non‐potable water system identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP) (BIMP, 2018). The City’s existing customer of non‐potable water (otherwise known as recycled water) is the Sun Lakes Country Club golf course. Future potential customers 672
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 2
may include: Lions Park, Banning High School, Dysart Park, a neighborhood park and the Rancho San Gorgonio development. The proposed Project was not specifically identified in the City’s IMP; however, it is needed to provide non‐potable water supplies to existing and potential customers on the west side of the City.

Project Location and Setting
The Project is located south of the I‐10 freeway in the City as shown on Figure 2, and is more specifically located on vacant land south of Lincoln Street between South 22nd Street and South 16th Street within APN 538‐280‐001, which is approximately 7.51 acres. There is an existing wood and chain link fence along the western Project site boundary. The Project site receives routine weed abatement and sits at an elevation between 2,401 to 2,403 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

Description of Project
The Project entails the construction and operation of a new non‐potable water storage reservoir with a capacity of approximately 61,000 gallons, associated appurtenances, on‐site accessroad, and the construction and operation of a new booster pump station designed forthe future ultimate flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The proposed Project will only utilize a portion of the parcel it is located on. The total disturbance area during construction is approximately 1.39 acres, which includes construction staging. This is approximately

18.4 percent of the parcel. Once construction is complete, the proposed Project’s disturbance area is approximately 0.48 acres, which represents approximately 6.4 percent of the total parcel acreage. The proposed Project characteristics are further described below and shown on Figure 5 – Project Site Plan.

Reservoir
The reservoir entails the construction of a circular above‐ground, bolted steel tank measuring 24‐feet in diameter with a shell height of 21 feet which will sit on an elevation of 2,404.20 amsl. The reservoir will have a capacity to store approximately 60,910 gallons of non‐potable water. The reservoir will be designed in accordance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) D103 standards, which sets guidelines for the construction of welded steel water tanks.  The interior of the reservoir will be factory‐coated in epoxy and the exterior will be coated with polyester powder coating that will blend in with the local surrounding environment. Interior support columns and foundations will be provided as needed. The reservoir will include standard tank appurtenances such as roof vent, roof hatch and platform, exterior stairway, ladder, minimum ring wall, valves, piping, inspection hatch, level gauge and transmitter, and conduits.

Reservoir design also includes an overflow catch basin located on the southeastern side of the reservoir that is 3‐feet wide and 8‐feet long. From the catch basin, approximately 160 linear feet of 18‐inch diameter storm drain pipeline will be installed underground and will outlet through the proposed headwall at Lincoln Street.

The reservoir will connect to the existing 24‐inch diameter non‐potable water transmission pipeline in Lincoln Street. Non‐potable water will be diverted to the reservoir, routed to the proposed booster pump station and ultimately pumped back into the existing pipeline.

Booster Station
The booster station building will be located at the north of the reservoir at an elevation of approximately 2,403 feet amsl, on a concrete slab on grade foundation with split face masonry exterior walls and tile roof.

The building will be approximately 38‐feet long. 24‐feet wide and 12‐feet tall. Roof hatches will be provided over each pump to facilitate pump removal. The building will be ventilated with a power exhaust fan and automatic air inlet wall louvers. Interior and exterior lights will be provided along with intrusion alarms and cameras.

The booster pumps will be vertical turbine pumps designed for an ultimate future flow of 2,500 gpm. Space for three electric pumps will be provided. Two 75 horsepower (hp) pumps will be constructed (one for standby) and space for a third pump will be provided. The two pumps will be sized for existing non‐potable 673
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 3
water demand of 1,000 gpm each and both will have variable speed pump controls. The third pump will be sized for a capacity of 1,500 gpm. The ultimate future flow of 2,500 gpm assumes three (3) pumps at 1,250 gpm each. Two (2) firm pumps and one (1) standby pump. The booster pumps will connect to the existing non‐portable water transmission main located in Lincoln Street. Appurtenances for the booster station will include a motor control center, flow meter, valves, pressure transmitter, and one portable diesel‐fueled emergency generator that will only be used during emergencies and routine testing.

A new SCADA system will be installed on the Project site. The system will include a control panel process controller and software components to communicate with the City’s SCADA system. The SCADA antennae will be mounted on the top of the reservoir and the antennae will not extend more than five feet above the top of the reservoir.

Site Access
Access to the Project site consists of a new asphalt driveway near the western Project site boundary that will transition to a 20‐foot‐wide asphalt access road leading to the reservoir and booster station. A cable railing fence will be installed near the driveway entrance, extending to the western property boundary from the northwest corner of a proposed perimeter wall that encloses the booster station building and reservoir. A 20‐ foot‐wide swinging pipe gate will be installed across the access road, connecting to the cable railing fence. A new cable railing fence will also be installed between the western property boundary and the southwest corner of the perimeter wall; this fence will include a swinging gate for access to the rest of the parcel.

The booster station building and reservoir will be enclosed by an approximately 6‐foot tall combination masonry block wall topped with a four‐foot‐tall tubular steel fence that is accessible on the western boundary via a 20‐foot‐wide sliding gate. Inside the perimeter wall, the 20‐foot‐wide access road is paved and bisects the two structures (the booster station building and reservoir). The area south of the access road surrounding the reservoir will be paved whereas the area north of the access road that surrounds the booster station building will include both concrete and gravel.

Lighting and Security
Light and camera poles will be installed within the perimeter wall surrounding the booster station building and reservoir. Lighting will be shielded or downward facing to avoid light pollution or light spillage and will be installed in accordance with Section 17.24.100 (Lighting) of the City Municipal Code.

Electrical
New electricalservice will be required for the Projectsite and provided by the City of Banning from an existing adjacent electrical system source. The Project site is proposing to connect to an existing overhead electric pole on the north side of Lincoln Street, across from the proposed Project driveway. The Project will require a 480/240 volt electrical system sized for two booster pumps. The new electric line will be underground, and service will include a new electrical vault and transformer. Fiber optic service to the site is also proposed with the electrical.

Drainage
Currently,storm water generally sheet flows acrossthe Projectsite in a southeasterly direction. The proposed Project improvements will increase impervious surfaces on the site and is expected to result in a negligible increase in storm water runoff that will maintain the existing drainage pattern. All on‐site storm water will be captured on site in accordance with State and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. A concrete drainage swale will surround the reservoir and convey storm water to the proposed 18‐inch diameter storm drain pipeline east of the perimeter wall. The runoff from the booster station area will be collected in a four‐ inch diameter pipeline and connect to the proposed 18‐inch diameter storm drain pipeline east of the 674
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 4
perimeter wall. Storm water discharged to the 18‐inch storm drain pipeline will be conveyed off‐site where it would flow east to the municipal storm drain system at Lincoln Street.

Frontage Improvements
The Project proposes to widen the southern portion of Lincoln Street within existing right‐of‐way along the Project frontage and create a new paved driveway for access. Pavement width will vary from approximately two to eight feet wide. The existing pavement edge will be sawcut and the surface will be ground and overlaid with new pavement. An asphalt curb will be installed at the new edge of pavement.

Construction
Construction activities include removal of existing on‐site vegetation, grading and excavation, paving, construction of the proposed facilities in addition to associated improvements and utility connections. The construction footprint is approximately 1.39 acres. Construction staging will occur on site within the construction footprint and south of the proposed reservoir as shown on Figure 5 – Project Site Plan. During remedial grading, on‐site soils will be excavated and recompacted and are expected to require approximately 317 cubic yards of import. The maximum depth of excavation is approximately six feet. During Project construction, it is possible there would be temporary lane closures along Lincoln Street. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 12 months and will begin in August 2024.

Maintenance
During operations, routine maintenance will occur and may include, but is not limited to, daily maintenance vehicle trips to inspect the booster station and reservoir. Maintenance vehicles would visit the Project site during the City’s normal business hours.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The area to the north, west and northwest includesresidential homes; the adjacent area to the south is vacant and undeveloped land; the adjacent area to the east is Montgomery Creek followed by vacant and undeveloped area; the area to the northeast is industrial buildings.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
 County of Riverside, American Resue Plan Act (ARPA) – funding allocation through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Final Rule
 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Colorado River Region – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
 South Coast Air Quality Management District – permit for backup generator

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project are requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The City of Banning provided Assembly Bill (AB 52) notification to Tribes that have previously requested such a notice. The consultation process is discussed under Threshold XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study.
675
676
677
678
679
680
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 10
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources   Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality   Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legalstandards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature   Date
Arturo Vela, Director of Public Works
Printed Name
4/25/24
681
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 11
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross‐referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063©(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
682
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 12
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 683
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 13
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Aesthetics Discussion:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than significant impact.  The City of Banning (City) defines visual resources as those physical features that enhance the City’s aesthetic and scenic character. The majority of the City is located within the narrow east‐west trending valley of the San Gorgonio Pass, which is dominated by the San Bernardino Mountains along the northern end of the valley and the San Jacinto Mountains along the southern end of the valley. (GP DEIR, p. III‐189.) These mountain ranges present impressive viewsheds and dramatic scenery, including frequently snow‐covered mountain peaks and ranges with rugged slopes. The San Bernardino Mountains which can be seen from the Project site towards the northern horizon have a peak elevation of approximately 11,499 feet above sea level. The San Jacinto Mountains seen from the Project site towards the southern horizon have a peak at an approximate elevation of 10,804 feet above sea level. (GP DEIR, p. III‐189.) The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 2,400 feet above sea level. The Project’s largest structure would be the 21‐foot‐tall reservoir with the SCADA antenna that extends 5 feet above the reservoir.

However, given the differences in elevation between the Project site and the mountains and the relative lack of massing of both the reservoir and SCADA antenna, the proposed Project would not obscure views of the San Bernardino Mountains or the San Jacinto Mountains. Construction equipment and related construction activity at the Project site may result in limited, short term, and undesirable visuals; however, this will be a temporary condition, which will cease after construction is completed. Therefore, impacts regarding a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista will be less than significant.

Sources: GP DEIR; Project Description
684
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 14
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No impact. A portion of State Highway 243 is designated as a state scenic highway where it occurs in the City’s southern Sphere of Influence; however, the City’s GP Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) determined that development pursuant to the City’s GP would have a limited impact to viewsheds along this corridor. (GP DEIR, p. III‐190.) Moreover, the portion of Highway 243 designated as a state scenic highway is approximately 1.5 miles east from the Project site. As such, the Project will not physically affect scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impact will occur.

Source: GP DEIR
c) In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than significant impact.  CEQA Section 21071(a) defines an incorporated city as being an urbanized area if it meets either of the following criteria:
(1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
(2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.

The City is not categorized as an urbanized area because (i) the City’s population is not at least 100,000 persons and (ii) the combined population of both the City and the City of Beaumont (the only contiguous city) is less than 100,000 persons. Based on July 1, 2022 United States Census Bureau data Banning has a population of approximately 30,683 persons and Beaumont has a population of 56,349 persons, totaling to a population of approximately 85,553 persons. (USCB.) The January 1, 2023, California Department of Finance population estimate for Banning and Beaumont is approximately 31,250 and 56,590, respectively. (DOF.) Since the City is not an urbanized area, this analysis is based on whether Project implementation would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the Project site and its surroundings.

Public views of the Project site are from (i) W. Lincoln Street (between S. 22nd Street and S. 16th Street, (ii) W.

Westward Avenue (between S. 22nd and Lowell Street). The Project site may also be briefly visible from motorists traveling in the westbound lanes of I‐10, which is approximately 0.20 of a mile north of the Project site.

Although the Project site will be visible from public access points and will change the view of the Project site from vacant land to water conveyance infrastructure, this will not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of public views of the site or its surroundings. Because above ground utilities are already present in proximity to the Project site and there are no unique items or visual interest present on the Project site.

Additionally, existing commercial and industrial development that exceeds the height of the proposed Project facilitiesislocated near the Projectsite. The proposed reservoir will not exceed 21 feet high and will be coated to blend in with the surrounding environment. The SCADA antenna will be mounted on top of the reservoir and will not extend more than five feet above the reservoir. The booster station will be about 12 feet tall and 685
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 15
will be a relatively small structure. Therefore, the Project does not include any above‐grade features of significant mass that would alter or interfere with the dramatic and valuable viewsheds provided by the mountains. (GP, p. II‐1.) For these reasons, Project implementation would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site or its surroundings and impacts would be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; UCSB; DOF; GP
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact.  Light pollution may result due to introduction of new artificial light sources. The International Dark‐Sky Association defines light pollution as any adverse effect of artificial light including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night and energy waste. (IDA.) Night lighting and glare can effect human vision, navigation, and other activities; however, it can also affect nocturnal wildlife particularly nigh‐hunting or foraging animals, such as owls, rodents, and others. Glare is typically associated with installation of windows and other reflective surfaces.

The existing light sources within proximity to the Project site include: streetlights within Lincoln Street; streetlights and residential lighting from the residential neighborhood west of the Project site; and lighting from the commercial/industrial development north of the Project site. The Project site and surrounding area are therefore not generally dark at night. The proposed Project will introduce a new source of light. Security lighting will be installed along the perimeter of the booster station and reservoir. However, on‐site lighting will be shielded or downward facing to avoid light pollution or light spillage and will be installed in accordance with the City’s standards. Project implementation will not introduce a source of substantial glare to the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; IDA

686
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 16
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non‐forest use?
Agricultural Resources Discussion:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
No impact. The proposed Project site is not located within areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the Projectsite consists of Urban and Built Up Land, and is adjacent to other vacant lands. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project will not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impact will occur.

Source: FMMP
687
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 17
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The proposed Project is not located within a Williamson Act contract. As of 2004, there were three Williamson Act contracts in effect over approximately 3,500 acres within the City’s GP planning area. These include lands located in the City limits near the Banning Bench, in the northwest portion of the planning area between Highland Springs Avenue and Highland Home Road, and in the City’s southerly sphere of influence south of Westward Avenue/Sun Lakes Boulevard. (GP, p. IV‐22.) These lands are being phased out due to urbanization, although residential land uses that allow for agricultural and ranching activities are provided for under the GP. (GP DEIR, p. III‐11.) Per Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, the Project site is zoned as Open Space‐Parks. The City zones the surrounding areas as General Commercial, Low‐Density Residential, and Very Low Density Residential. Therefore, there are no agricultural zoning/land use designations adjacent to the Project site (see Figure 3). The Project will not encroach Williamson Act land or change a land use in the vicinity of a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts will occur.

Sources:  GP; GP DEIR
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Forest land, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) section 12220(g) is land that can support 10 percent of native tree cover of any species under natural conditions and that allows for the management of one or more forest resources. Timberland, as defined in PRC section 4526, means land other than land owned by the federal government and land designated as experimental forest land, which is capable of growing a crop of trees for any commercial species, including Christmas trees.

No impact. The Project does not propose or require rezoning. As shown on Figure 3, the proposed Project site is within the City of Banning. Banning does not have a zoning designation for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City limits. Therefore, there is no zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within the Project site and surrounding areas.

Further, according to Table 17.08.020 of Banning’s Municipal Code, farming uses are prohibited in the City’s LDR, MDR, and HDR‐20 zones. Community gardens are a permitted use in the City’s OS‐R, zone; however, a community garden would not allow commercial tree production as defined in PRC section 12220(g).

Given the location and City’s zoning designations, the Project site does not traverse through or adjacent to areas zoned for forest land, or Timberland Production, no impacts would occur.

Sources: GP; PRC 12220; PRC 4526; BMC
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? No impact. There is no forest land in proximity to the Project site. Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land; thus, there would be no impact in this regard.

Sources: GP
688
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 18
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? No impact. As discussed in Response IIa, there is no designated Farmland on or in proximity to the Project site. As stated in Response IId, there is no forest land within or adjacent to the Project site. As such, implementation of the proposed Project will not result in the conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. Therefore, there will be no impacts.

Sources: FMMP; GP
689
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 19
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Air Quality Discussion:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact.  The City of Banning is in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) preparesthe Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. The AQMD sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the Basin into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. (SCAQMD 2022, pp. ES‐2 and 1‐4.) The control measures and related emission reduction estimatesincluded in the AQMP are based on emissions projectionsfor a future developmentscenario derived from land use, population, and employment estimates defined in consultation with local governments.  To do this, the AQMP utilizes the population and growth estimates compiled by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in their 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). (SCAQMD 2022, pp. 4‐51 – 4‐52.) SCAG’s population and employment projections for the City are based on the City’s growth projections (SCAG RTP/SCS, p. 70.), which are outlined in the GP. Accordingly, if a project demonstrates compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections, then the AQMP would have taken into account such uses when it was developed, and the project would not conflict with implementation of such a plan.

The proposed Project consists of the construction and operation of infrastructure to provide non potable water supplies in the City. The proposed Project would not alter population projections and is an allowable use under the OS‐PA designation of the BMC (BMC, 17.20.020), and is consistent with the City’s existing land use designations. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: BMC; SCAG RTP/SCS; SCAQMD 2022
690
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 20
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality? Less than significant impact.   The portion of the Basin within which the proposed Project is located is designated as a non‐attainment area for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM‐10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM‐2.5) under the State standards and for ozone and PM‐2.5 under Federal standards. (CARB 2024) The SCAQMD considers the thresholds for project‐specific impacts and cumulative impacts to be the same. (SCAQMD 2003.) Therefore, projects that exceed project‐ specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. Based on SCAQMD’s regulatory jurisdiction over regional air quality, it is reasonable to rely on its thresholds to determine whether there is a cumulative air quality impact.

Air quality impacts can be described in a short‐ and long‐term perspective. Short‐term impacts occur during site grading and Project construction and consist of fugitive dust and other particulate matter, as well as exhaust emissions generated by construction‐related vehicles. Long‐term impacts occur once the Project is in operation. Operational emissions sources are limited because the booster station pumps are electric. The primary source of operational emissions is the routine visits by vehicles driven by maintenance personnel and are considered negligible; therefore, only short‐term impacts were quantified.

The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rulesfor the reduction of fugitive dust emissions.

SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemicalstabilizersto disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent,stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 or more acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of this Project’s footprint (approximately 0.48 acres) a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form would not be required.

An Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas analysis (AQ/GHG Analysis) was prepared for the Project by Albert A. Webb Associates dated January 2, 2024 (WEBB(a)) and is included in Appendix A to this Initial Study. Short‐term emissions from Project construction were evaluated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table A –Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, below.
691
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 21
Table A – Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Activity
Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM‐10 PM‐2.5
SCAQMD Daily Construction
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
2024 1.60 14.70 15.90 0.03 2.39 1.43
2025 1.50 13.70 15.80 0.03 0.84 0.55
Maximum1 1.60 14.70 15.90 0.03 2.39 1.43
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: WEBB(a), Table 2 – Unmitigated Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Note: 1 See the detailed model output reports attached herewith. Numbers are the maximum of summer or winter emissions in a given year and may not match due to rounding within the model.

As shown in Table A above, the emissions from construction of the Project are below the SCAQMD daily construction thresholds for all criteria pollutants. As such, the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non‐attainment and the impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Sources: CARB 2024; SCAQMD 2003; WEBB(a); Project Description c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact.  A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant including children, the elderly, and persons with pre‐ existing respiratory and/or cardiovascular illness. SCAQMD defines a “sensitive receptor” as a land use or facility such as residences, schools, child care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, retirement homes, and convalescent homes where these persons are typically located. (SCAQMD 1993.) The nearest sensitive receptors are residential properties adjacent to and west of the Project site. Residential uses are also located north and northwest of the Project site, across Lincoln Street. (WEBB(a), p. 5.) According to the LST methodology, only on‐site emissions need to be analyzed. Emissions associated with vendor and worker trips are mobile source emissions that occur off site. The emissions analyzed under the LST methodology are NO2, CO, PM‐10, and PM‐2.5. SCAQMD has provided LST lookup tables to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts for projects five acres or smaller. Based on SCAQMD guidance, the Project will disturb approximately one acre per day during grading. Therefore, the one‐acre LST was used to compare the on‐site emissions estimated by CalEEMod. (WEBB(a), pp. 4‐5.) The LST thresholds are estimated using the maximum daily disturbed area (in acres) and the distance of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptors (in meters). The closest receptor distance on the LST look‐up tables is 25 meters. According to LST methodology, projects with boundaries closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, a receptor distance of 25 meters (82 feet) was used to ensure a conservative analysis. (WEBB(a), p. 5.) The results are summarized below. 692
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 22
Table B – LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions
Activity Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM‐10 PM‐2.5
LST for 1‐acre at 25 meters 103 1,000 6 4
Grading‐2024 12.80 12.30 2.27 1.40
Booster Station Construction‐2024 6.79 6.93 0.26 0.24
Booster Station Construction ‐2025 6.31 6.88 0.23 0.21
Tank Construction‐2024 7.38 7.78 0.31 0.28
Tank Construction‐2025 6.84 7.72 0.27 0.25
Tank Coating‐2025 3.04 2.81 0.11 0.11
Paving‐2025 3.58 4.97 0.17 0.15
Maximum1 14.17 14.71 2.27 1.40
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: WEBB(a), Table 3 – LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions.

Note: 1. Maximum emissions are the greater of either each activity along or the sum of Booster Station Construction and Tank Construction in 2024 or 2025 as these activities overlap. Maximum emissions are shown in bold.

Emissions from construction of the Project will be below the LST established by SCAQMD for the Project.

Therefore, localized construction impacts will be less than significant.

Regarding the Project’s long‐term localized impacts, LSTs only apply to the operational phase if a project includes stationary sources or on‐site mobile equipment generating on‐site emissions. The proposed Project does not include such uses. The long‐term emissions from the Project, as discussed previously in Response IIIb, are primarily from the pumps and in the form of mobile source emissions, with no stationary sources of emissions present. The new boosterstation pumps will be electric powered. The boosterstation will also have a diesel‐powered emergency generator. Because the emergency generator will only be used during emergency power outages and routine testing, emissions would be negligible. The City of Banning will be required to obtain an SCAQMD permit to install and operate the emergency generator. The SCAQMD permitting process would ensure that the Project meets regulatory requirements through the application review process and by placing specific operating conditions on the permit such as operating hour limits.

Therefore, no long‐term LST analysis is needed and localized operational emissions would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Sources: SCAQMD 1993; WEBB(a); Project Description
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact.  The Project presents the potential for generation of other emissions such as odors in the form of diesel exhaust during construction in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Odors generated during construction will be short‐term and will not result in a long‐term odorous impact to the surrounding area. After completion of the proposed improvements, only infrequent maintenance will be required.
693
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 23
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to outline common sources of odor complaints, including: sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and petroleum refineries. (CARB 2005, p. 2‐2.) The Project proposes a non‐potable water reservoir and booster station which is not included on CARB’s list of uses that are known to generate odors. No other emissions are anticipated to result from the Project that could adversely affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Source:  CARB 2005

694
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 24
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Biological Resource Discussion:

The analysis this section is based on the findings in the Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis, January 19, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the BTR), which was prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates(WEBB(b)). This document isincluded as Appendix B of thisInitial Study. Webb conducted literature reviews and searches of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, U.S Geological Survey, Soil Survey data, Western Riverside MSHCP, U.S Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation, National Wetlands Inventory, and USGS National Hydrography Dataset. In addition to the literature review and database searches, a reconnaissance‐level field assessment of the proposed Project footprint was conducted including a 100‐foor survey buffer, herein defined as the biological study area (BSA). The BSA plus Project footprint totals 4.53 acres. (WEBB(b), pp. 6‐7.) 695
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 25
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.   According to the BTR, the Project site is currently characterized as disturbed and undeveloped, with no existing structures and is composed of the following four vegetation communities: Urban/Developed lands, Disturbed habitat, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and Unvegetated Channel. Implementation of the proposed Project will result in permanent and temporary impacts to two of these four communities, as shown below in Table C – Vegetation Communities Present on the Project Site. (WEBB(b), p. 15.)
Table C ‐ Vegetation Communities Present on the Project Site Permanent and temporary impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types as a result of Project implementation are quantified and summarized in Table D.

Vegetation Community Description
Present
within
Project
footprint
Total
(acres)
Urban/Developed (URB/DEV)
Areas that have undergone construction
or significant physical alterations, to an
extent that native vegetation is no longer
supported.

Present 1.88
Disturbed Habitat (DH)
Areas that have not been developed but
have experienced physical disturbances
caused by human activities. These areas
still retain a soil substrate and are
primarily covered by non‐native species.

Present 2.56
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
(RAFSS)
Usually occurs on alluvial fans in southern
California, particularly in Riverside and
San Diego counties. This variant of sage
scrub is adapted to the unique conditions
found on alluvial fans, which typically
have well‐drained, rocky soils.

Not present
located in
the
Montgomery
Creek

0.06 Unvegetated Channel (UVC)
Sandy, gravelly, or rocky area along
waterways or flood channels where
vegetation does not typically grow on a
permanent basis
Not present
located in
the
Montgomery
Creek

0.03 Total 4.53
696
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 26
Table D ‐ Summary of Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Vegetation Community / Land Cover Type
Permanent
(acre)
Temporary
(acre)
Total
Urban/Developed (URB/DEV) 0.09 0.01 0.1
Disturbed Habitat (DH) 0.39 0.90 1.29
Total Project Footprint 0.48 0.91 1.39
Source: WEBB(b), Table 3
Neither of these vegetation habitat types are considered sensitive. Permanent impacts total 0.48 acre and temporary impacts total 0.91 acre within these land cover types. (WEBB(b), p. 19.) Special Status Sensitive Vegetation Communities
RAFSS is classified as a sensitive vegetation community; therefore, any potential impacts to this community would necessitate mitigation measures. Although RAFSS are present in Montgomery Creek, which is within the BSA but not within the Project footprint, no impacts are anticipated on this community as a result of Project implementation. (WEBB(b), p. 18.) To ensure the RAFSS associated with Montgomery Creek are avoided during construction activities, mitigation measure MM BIO‐1, which requires the installation of temporary exclusionary construction fencing, shall be implemented to minimize the risk of accidental impacts to the RAFSS within the BSA. (WEBB(b), p. 28.)
MM BIO‐1 Temporary Exclusionary/Construction Fencing. To protect Montgomery Creek sensitive habitats (RAFSS) and the riverine habitat which are adjacent to the Project footprint, within the BSA, temporary exclusionary construction fencing will be installed at the Project footprint boundary where they are adjacent to Montgomery Creek with the Project Biologist present to ensure the fencing is placed in the correct areas of the site (see Figure 6 – Exclusionary Fencing of Appendix B). The purpose of fencing shall be to prevent disturbances to adjacent sensitive habitats and to avoid the spread of debris from the construction zone into adjacent areas.

Special Status Plant Species
No special‐status plant species were observed during the general habitat assessment. Most of the BSA and all of the impact footprint is composed of disturbed lands that lack suitable habitat for special‐status plants.

Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐1, no direct or indirect impact to special‐ status plant species are expected. (WEBB(b), pp.18, 21.) Special Status Wildlife Species
No special‐status wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment and no special‐status wildlife species are expected to occur. Given the disturbed nature of the Project site and associated habitat types no direct or indirect impacts to special status wildlife species are expected. (WEBB(b), pp. 18, 21.) The Project site does not contain suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Fish and Game Code. Suitable habitat such as trees and bushes are 697
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 27
not present within the Project footprint. Ground nesters are unlikely due to the disturbed vegetation and frequency of mowing. Therefore, no impacts to nesting birds are anticipated to occur. (WEBB(b), pp. 18, 22.) The BSA does not contain suitable habitat such as vernal pools for fairy shrimp or riparian birds. The BSA is not located within a survey area for Narrow Endemic Species. (WEBB(b), p. 24.) The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).  The City of Banning is a permittee to the MSHCP and therefore the Project must not conflict with the plan. As discussed in Response IVf, the BSA is not located within MSHCP survey areas for Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Criteria Area Plant Species, amphibians, burrowing owl, or mammals. There are approximately 0.06 acres of RAFSS within Montgomery Creek, which is within the BSA but outside of the Project footprint. This is considered a riverine resource per the MSHCP. Project implementation would not result in any direct impacts to the RAFSS habitat. Indirect impacts to the RAFSS habitat in Montgomery Creek would be avoided through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in MSHCP Volume 1, Appendix C.

Thus, with implementation of MM BIO‐1 and compliance with MSHCP BMPs, the proposed Project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

Sources: WEBB(b)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Riparian/riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year (WEBB(b), p. 23.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.  According to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis of the BTR, the Project site does not support soils or plants suitable to support vernal pools, nor were vernal pools identified during site investigation. No vernal pools or other suitable fairy shrimp were found.

Additionally, no suitable habitat for riparian bird species was found. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts are expected to occur in relation to vernal pools or fairy shrimp.

Riparian/riverine areas are located within the Project’s BSA. Montgomery Creek, an ephemeral channel exhibiting steeply incised banks, traversesthe eastern portion of the BSA. Thisfeature is considered an MSHCP riverine resource. Within this reach, Montgomery Creek exhibits eroded banks with vertical spans surpassing 25 feet, while active flood plain maintains an average width of approximately 4 feet. The Creek's southern ingress into the BSA is facilitated by two 3‐foot corrugated steel culverts originating beneath West Lincoln Road. The Creek intersects the BSA, the Creek is absent from the Project footprint and therefore no direct impacts are anticipated to occur. (WEBB(b), p. 17.) With implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐1, 698
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 28
which requiresthe installation of exclusionary fencing and compliance with the BMPslisted in MSHCP Volume 1, Appendix C, indirect impacts to the riverine resource in Montgomery Creek will be less than significant with mitigation.

Sources: WEBB(b)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.   The site investigations conducted found no evidence of wetlands. Therefore, no fairy shrimp habitat, or riparian bird habitat is located within the Project footprint or the BSA. (WEBB(b), pp. 17, 24.)
As discussed in Response IVb., Project implementation will not have any direct impacts to wetland features.

Montogomery Creek is located within the BSA but is not within the Project footprint. Therefore, indirect impacts may occur if construction activities stray outside of the Project footprint. In order to protect the sensitive habitat from accidental disturbance, implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 and compliance with the BMPs listed in MSHCP Volume 1, Appendix C will reduce impacts regarding state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means to less than significant.

Source: WEBB(b)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife corridors are linear features that join large spans of natural open space that enable the movement of animals throughout the landscape. Habitat linkages are areas that provide connectivity between habitat patches as well as opportunities for foraging, reproduction, and dispersal habitat for plants and animals.

Habitat linkages help minimize the effects of habitat fragmentation as they function as steppingstones for wildlife dispersal. (WEBB(b), p. 19.)
No impact.  The Project site is not located within designated wildlife corridors or habitat linkages identified in the South Coast Missing Linkages analysis conducted by South Coast Wildlands (2008). The proposed Project site does not have any adjacency or on‐site connection to existing MSHCP Conservation Areas or lands designated for conservation purposes. There are no native wildlife nursery sites within proximity to the Project site. (WEBB(b), p. 22.)
Because the Project is not located in or adjacent to an MSHCP Conservation Area and no MSHCP linkages are identified in the Project area. There would be no impacts related to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (WEBB(b), p. 22.) Source: WEBB(b)
699
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 29
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact.  City of Banning Municipal Code Section 17.32.060 addresses the removal or destruction of trees; however, this section of the municipal code is not applicable to capital projects. Further, according to the site investigation conducted by Webb, no tress or bushes were present within the Project footprint. Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and impacts are less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; BMC; WEBB(b)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.  According to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis within the BTR, the Project site does not lie within and is not adjacent to any MSHCP Conservation Areas.

Although the Project does not have a requirement to set aside land for an MSCHP Conservation Area, the City is a Permittee to the MSHCP and therefore must ensure that all projects comply with MSHCP Sections 6.1.2 (Protection of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), 6.1.4 (Urban Wildlands Interface), 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), Appendix C (Standard Best Management Practices), and 7.5.3 (Construction Guidelines).

As discussed in Response IVb, Project implementation will not directly or indirectly impact riparian/riverine resources. Montgomery Creek is not within the Project footprint, but is within the BSA. Because no impacts are expected to Montgomery Creek, no Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) orspecific mitigation is necessary. As discussed in Response IVa, no fairy shrimp habitat, vernal pools, or riparian bird habitat was identified on the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project will not conflict with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. (WEBB(b), p. 24.)
Section 6.1.3 requires assessments of sites in a designated survey area for narrow endemic plants to be completed. As discussed in Response IVa, the Project footprint and BSA are not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). Therefore, the proposed Project will not conflict with MSHCP Section 6.1.3. (WEBB(b), p. 24.)
Section 6.1.4 outlines the minimization of indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to a MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project site is not located in proximity to a MSHCP Conservation Area. As such, the Project is not in conflict with the MSHCP Section 6.1.4. (WEBB(b), p. 24.) MSHCP Section 6.3.2 requires additional surveys for certain species depending upon the location of a given project. The Projectsite is not located within an MSHCP‐designated criteria area speciessurvey area for plants amphibians, burrowing owl, or mammals; therefore, no surveys are needed for these species. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with MSHCP Section 6.3.2. (WEBB(b), p. 24.) 700
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 30
The MSHCP lists standard best management practices (Appendix C) that will minimize potential impacts to sensitive habitats in the vicinity of a project. The guidelines relate to water pollution and erosion control, equipment storage, fueling, and staging, dust control, exotic plant control and timing of construction. The Project applicant, in this case the City, is required to implement measures from Appendix C. The Project is not located in the Criteria Area or PQP Lands, so Section 7.5.3 guidelines are not applicable. Implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 will address potential indirect construction impacts. Therefore, with mitigation the proposed Project is consistent with MSHCP Appendix C and Section 7.5.3.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted conservation plan and impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

Sources: WEBB(b)

701
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 31
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Cultural Resource Discussion:

The analysis this section is based on the findings in the Cultural Resource Investigation for the Banning NP‐2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, which was prepared by Applied EarthWorks (AE) and is included as Appendix C of this Initial Study (hereinafter referred to as the CRI). As part of the CRI, AE conducted archaeological literature and records searches on August 9, 2023 at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information Center (CHRIS), located at the University of California, Riverside. The EIC is the official cultural resource records repositories for Riverside County. AE reviewed maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resourcesin or within a 0.5‐mile radius around the Project site and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity. The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted by AE on June 22, 2023, for a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF). The SLF search was negative. AE archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project site to observe and note the condition of the Project site on August 23, 2023. The survey was completed in 15‐meter transects oriented north‐south, moving eastward through the Project site.

Approximately 90 percent of the Project area was accessible during the survey. (AE(a), pp. 13, 18.) The EIC records show that eight (8) previous cultural resource studies have been conducted and documented with the 0.5‐mile search radius. Three of these studies specifically involved portions of the Project site, as such, 100 percent of the Project site has been previously studied. (AE(a), p. 13.) a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant impact. Determination of National Register of Historic Property (NRHP) eligibility for cultural resources is made according to the following criteria of evaluation (36 CFR 60.4):

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 702
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 32
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack distinction; or D. that has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

A property must meet one or more of these specific criteria to qualify as a good representative of a significant historical theme or pattern. It must be associated with important historical events or persons (Criteria A and B); convey important technical, aesthetic, or environmental values (Criterion C); or have potential to provide important scientific or scholarly information (Criterion D). Unless a site is of exceptional importance, it is not eligible for listing in the NRHP until it is 50 years of age. (36 CFR 60.4., AE(a), p. 4.) For purposes of CEQA, a historical resource is any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript listed in, or eligible forlisting in the CRHR (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.1).

A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:

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

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

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

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The California Code of Regulations (CCR) further provides that cultural resources of local significance are CRHR‐eligible. (Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) (AE(a), pp. 4–5.) The previous cultural resourcesinvestigations conducted within the Projectsite identified a total of 46 cultural resources have been identified; five archaeological resources that date to the historic period and 41 built‐ environment resources. The five archaeological resources that date to the historic period include: one water diversion system, one concrete foundation, one refuse scatter, one rubble deposit, and one concrete well box.

The 44 built environment resources consist of historical houses and commercial buildings. (AE(a), pp. 14‐15.) None of the previously recorded cultural resources are documented within the Project site and are not listed as eligible on the NRHP or CRHR.

In addition to the EIC research, AE also reviewed historical maps. Specifically, AE consulted the USGS topographic quadrangle maps: San Jacinto 1901 30 minute, Southern California 1901 30 minute, Banning 1943 15 minute, Beaumont 1953 7.5 minute, Banning 1956 15 minute, and Sana Ana 1965 30 minute, to assessland use and development within the Project site.  All of the maps after 1901 exhibit several buildings outside of the Project site north and south of modern‐day Lincoln Street. The Southern Pacific Railroad appears north of the Project site on all of the examined maps. The same structures appear on aerial photographs as early as 1966. No structures, roads, or other features of historical interest are shown within, or in the vicinity of, the Projectsite on any of the reviewed historical maps. (AE(a), p. 15.) Moreover, the Projectsite is highly disturbed 703
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 33
and appears to have been previously plowed, and used as a staging area in the past, indicating that significant previous ground disturbance has previously occurred. (AE(a), p. 18.) Because the only three historic cultural resources documented within the Project site were not found during the pedestrian survey and were previously evaluated and recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, it is concluded that no historic properties (NRHP‐eligible) or historical resources(CRHR‐eligible) are present. Because the Projectsite has been previously disturbed by dirt pathways, plowing, and staging activity, there is a low likelihood that intact significant historical resources are buried. Additionally, geological data indicates no Ab (buried) horizons which would be conducive to preserving archaeological deposits are present. (AE(a), pp. ii, 18‐19.) Thus, implementation of the proposed Project will not cause any adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Sources: AE(a); GP
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As discussed above, none of the 46 historical/archaeological resources were recorded within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. AE contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 22, 2023 for a review of the SLF. The objective of the SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The NAHC responded on July 19, 2023, stating that the SLF was completed with negative results. The NAHC requested AE contact Native American individuals and organizations to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the proposed Project, if any.

AE sent out Project scoping letters via email and U.S. Postal Service to 11 individuals and organizations traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic region of the Project area on September 8, 2023. As of November 20, 2023, AE received two responses from The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requesting a copies of records and site searches, shapefiles, and cultural resources inventory of the Project area by a qualified archaeologist before any development activities commence and to be contact immediately if any resources are discovered.

Geologic data indicate two soil series within the Project site: Greenfield and Ramona soils. These soil types typically retain water for three months out of the year during warm seasons, and foster sufficient plant growth. None of the soil series mapped in the Project site include buried A (Ab) horizons which are conducive to buried archaeological deposits. All other archaeologicalsensitivity indicatorsreflect low potential for buried archaeological resources. Past disturbancesfrom dirt pathways, plowing, and staging activities have disturbed the Project site.  The records search conducted as part of the CRI did not identify any documented prehistoric resources within a 0.5‐mile radius of the Project site. Finally, the field archaeologists that conducted the pedestrian surveys for the CRI, did not encounter any archaeological deposits or features within the Project site. (AE(a), pp. 5, 13, 20.)
704
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 34
The lack of reported prehistoric archaeological remains with the Projectstudy area suggests that the property is not highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. Therefore, the Project site contains a relatively low potential to encounter intact, subsurface archaeological deposits. (AE(a), p. 20.) Although the potential to encounter intact and significant buried archaeological deposits is unlikely, the Project shall implement mitigation measure MM CR‐1 to reduce impactsto unknown archaeologicalresourcesto a lessthan significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MM CR‐1:  Inadvertent Discovery.  In the event cultural resources are discovered during Project construction, all ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist (meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards) can visit the site of discovery, assess the significance and integrity of the find, and determine the appropriate treatment (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) and disposition of the cultural resource. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the appropriate treatment has been accomplished. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue. Any such discoveries and subsequent evaluation and treatment, shall be documented and submitted to the EIC for archival purposes.

Source: AE(a)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than significant impact.  The proposed Project site is not located on any known cemetery and human remains are not expected to be disturbed during Project construction. However, if human remains are encountered during Project construction, the steps and procedures specified in the California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines §  15064.5(d), and California Public Resource Code § 5097.98, in accordance with PRC § 5097.98, must be implemented. In accordance with PRC § 5097.98, the Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery of potentially human remains. The Coroner must then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she must contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with PRC § 5097.98. The NAHC then designates a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains within 48 hours of notification. The MLD will then have the opportunity to recommend to the Project proponent, in this instance the City Public Works Department, means for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods within 24 hours of notification. Therefore, through regulatory compliance impacts will be lessthan significant.

Sources: HSC 7050.5; PRC 5097.98
705
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 35
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Energy Discussion:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than significant impact.  As an infrastructure project, the majority of impacts will be short‐term. As described in the AQ/GHG Analysis prepared (WEBB(a)) and included as Appendix A of this Initial Study, the Project’s short‐term construction would last approximately 12 months. Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for grading and paving, as well as construction workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project site. Construction equipment requires diesel as the fuel source and construction worker and vendor trips use both gasoline and diesel fuel. Project‐related fuel consumption was estimated in Energy Tables (WEBB(c)), which are included as Appendix D to this Initial Study.  Construction of the Project is estimated to use approximately 20,310 gallons of diesel fuel and 1,777 gallons of gasoline.

Fuel consumption from on‐site heavy‐duty construction equipment during construction would be temporary in nature and uses a limited number of equipment, which would represent a negligible demand on energy resources. Construction equipment is also required to comply with regulations limiting idling to five minutes or less (13 CCR § 2449(d)(3)). Furthermore, there are no unusual Project site characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy‐efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. For comparison, the State of California consumed 14 billion gallons of gasoline and 3 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2023, which is the most recent published data. (CAL‐ A.) Thus, the fuel usage during Project construction would account for a negligible percent of the existing gasoline and diesel fuel related energy consumption in the State of California. Furthermore, it is expected that construction‐related fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

706
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 36
Energy used during operation of the Project would primarily result from electricity usage from the proposed booster station pumps. Based on the estimated pump sizing, the estimated electricity consumption is approximately 11,332 megawatt‐hours (MWh) per year (WEBB(a), p. 6). This represents a negligible demand on City of Banning Electric Utility, which produced approximately 151.55 gigawatt‐hours (one gigawatt‐hour is 1,000 MWh) in 2022 (CEC) and therefore would not operate in a manner that is wasteful or inefficient.

For these reasons, the Project would not result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during Project construction or operation. Impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Sources: WEBB(a); WEBB(c); CAL‐A; CEC; Project Description b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact.  As discussed above in Response VIa, implementation of the Project will not result in inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption. The proposed Project would be required to comply with state and federal energy conservation measures related to construction and operations, as noted above. As such, impacts to obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency during construction or operation will be less than significant.

Source: Project Description

707
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 37
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
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? 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?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Geology and Soils Discussion:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

The discussion to this response is based on findings and recommendations from the Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation which was prepared by Geocon West, Inc. and is included as Appendix E.1 of this Initial Study (hereinafter referred to as the SGI). The SGI includes the results of subsurface investigation with borings to maximum depths of 50 ½ feet below the existing ground surface and laboratory tests; preliminary seismic evaluation and recommendationsfor new pavements, earthwork, utility trench backfill, lateral design, drainage and moisture protection, and additional field work and laboratory testing. (Geocon, Appendix A, pp. 3, 5–16.)
708
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 38
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologistfor the area or based on othersubstantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than significant impact. The Project site is not located within a State of California Fault Hazard Zone or a Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone. The closest fault to the Project site is located along the San Gorgonio Pass, which is approximately 4,900 feet north of the booster pump station.  The Project site is not located on any known active earthquake fault trace; therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to active faulting on the Project site is considered to be low. (Geocon, p. 4.) Additionally, due to the nature of the proposed Project it does not pose a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death as it does not propose any habitable structures and will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s standard specifications and the recommendations of the SGI. Therefore, potential substantial adverse impacts resulting from the rupture of a known earthquake fault are considered less than significant.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR; Geocon
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact.  Given its physical and geologic location, the Banning area, like most regions in Southern California, is susceptible to potential intense seismic ground shaking that could affect the safety and welfare of the general community. (GP DEIR, p. III‐74.) A preliminary seismic evaluation was conducted as part of the Project’s SGI using information from the San Andreas, San Gorgonio Pass, and San Jacinto faults. Based on the results of the preliminary seismic evaluation, field exploration, and laboratory testing, the SGI includes recommendations for design and construction of the proposed Project. As recommended by SGI, the booster station building will be a masonry block building supported by conventional shallow foundations with a slab‐on grade floor. The reservoir tank will be a bolted steel tank with steel reinforcement bars constructed on a shallow perimeter ring and slab foundation system.

Flexible couplings and seismic shut‐off switches are amongst other design and construction elements that will be implemented. Since the Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable City standards and incorporate the recommendations of the SGI, potential substantial adverse impacts resulting from strong seismic ground‐shaking will be less than significant.

Source: GP DEIR, Geocon
iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact.   Liquefaction occurs when shallow, fine to medium‐grained sediments saturated with water are subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. It generally occurs when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface. According to the City’s GP, the Project site is located in an area with moderate liquefaction susceptibility (GP, Exhibit V‐4; GP DEIR, Exhibit III‐14, Geocon, p. 6.).
709
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 39
According to the Project’s SGI, the Project site is located within areas mapped as having a “moderate” potential for liquefaction. (Geocon, p. 6.) The subsurface investigation conducted as part of the Project’s SGI did not encounter shallow groundwater during the investigation. Historical well data at the site of the pump station is reported to be 735 feet deep, screened from 460‐680 feet and have a water depth of 425 feet. (Geocon, p. 4.) Due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the dense nature of alluvial soils, neither liquefaction norseismic “dry‐sand” settlement is a design consideration for the site.  Moreover, the nature of the Project will not expose people to substantial risk from seismic‐related ground failure including liquefaction, since there are no habitable structures proposed. Further, the Project will incorporate and implement the recommendations from the Project’s SGI in addition to standard engineering and construction protocols to address ground failure/liquefaction. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Geocon; GP; GP DEIR
iv) Landslides?
Less than significant impact.  The proposed Project site is not located adjacent to any areas with low, moderate, or high risk of seismically induced settlement and slope instability and no known landslides have occurred in the Project vicinity. (GP, Exhibit V‐2; GP DEIR, Exhibit III‐15, Geocon, p. 7.) No topographical features that could potentially create landslides are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR, Geocon
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact.   Construction of the proposed Project will entail grading, excavation, and construction in unpaved areas, may lead to localized erosion as wind and water carry loose soils offsite. The proposed grading of the Project site is not expected to include the construction of significant cut or fill slopes. (Geocon, p. 7.) Compliance with current regulations and implementation of a State‐required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates effective erosion and sediment control measures would reduce these impacts to less than significant.

Source: Project Description, GP, GP‐DEIR, Geocon
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?
Less than significant impact.  Impacts related to landslides are addressed in Response VIa.iv, above; impacts related to liquefaction are addressed in Response VIa.iii, above; both were found to have less than significant impacts. The following analysis addresses impacts related to unstable soils, as a result of lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse.

Lateral spreading refers to the lateral movement of gently to steeply sloping saturated soil deposits caused by earthquake‐induced liquefaction. As discussed in Response VIa.iii, above, the Project site is mapped in an 710
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 40
area of moderate liquefaction susceptibility; however, due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the dense nature of alluvialsoils, neither liquefaction nor seismic “dry‐sand” settlement is a design consideration for the site. Nonetheless, during an earthquake lateral spreading could occur. Subsidence in the Banning area is closely associated with groundwater levels and the most populated part of the City occurs in an area with geologic conditions vulnerable to ground subsidence. In particular, the alluvial sediments within the groundwater basins from which the City’s water is withdrawn are subject to subsidence if rapid groundwater extraction occurs in response to increased water demands as a result of population growth or prolonged drought. (GP DEIR, p. III‐69.) Structures sensitive to slight changes in elevation, such as canals, sewers and drainage improvements are generally sensitive to the effects ofsubsidence and may be damaged ifsubsidence occurs. (GP DEIR, p III‐80). As discussed in Response VIa.iii, the shallowest groundwater in the Project area is 243 to 271 feet below ground surface. (Geocon, p. 4.)
A substantial portion of the City’s valley and canyon areas are underlain by potentially compressible and/or collapsible soils consisting of young sediments with low density that will settle under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings. (GP DEIR, p. III‐81.) The Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable City standards and incorporate the recommendations of the SGI, and will incorporate engineering and construction protocols to address, among other things, lateral spreading and collapse, Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Geocon; GP DEIR
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? Less than significant impact.  Expansive soils are those that contain significant amount of clay particles that have a high shrink (dry) and swell (wet) potential. The upward pressures induced by the swelling of expansive soils under moist condition can have harmful effect upon structures. In the City, expansive soils are primarily associated with areas underlain by older fan deposits containing argillic (clay‐rich) soil profiles, which are in the moderately expansive range. Since the low‐lying areas of the City are underlain by alluvial fan sediments that are composed primarily of granular soils, the expansion potential ranges from very low to moderately low. (GP DEIR, p. III‐69.)
The SGI found that the geologic material within the Project area consisted of Pleistocene‐age Young Alluvial fan (Qf), and Older Alluvial fan (Qof) deposits. (Geocon, p. 3.) Laboratory testing of site soils indicated these soils are “non‐expansive” with an Expansion Index of 7 and 11 which is classified as “very low”. These are granularsoils and, asindicated in the GP DEIR, the potential for expansion rangesfrom very low to moderately low. Since the Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable City standards and incorporate the recommendations of the SGI, potential substantial direct or indirect risks from expansive soil will be less than significant.

Sources: Geocon; GP DEIR
711
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 41
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? No impact.   The Project does not include wastewater or tying into existing infrastructure for disposal of wastewater and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will be required. Therefore, no impact will occur.

Source: Project Description
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The discussion to this response is based on findings and recommendations from the Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP‐2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project City of Banning, Riverside County, California, (hereinafter referred to as the Paleontological Assessment) prepared by Applied EarthWorks (AE), December 2023. The Paleontological Assessment is included as Appendix E.2 of this Initial Study. The Paleontological Assessment was prepared by AE paleontology staff who meet the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology qualification standards following guidelines developed by the County of Riverside to determine the likelihood of the presence of paleontological resources at the Project site.

Following the County’s established process, baseline information is used to assign the paleontological sensitivity of a geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) to one of five categories ‐ N/A, Low, Undetermined, High A (Ha), and High B (Hb) potential. Geologic units are “sensitive” for paleontological resources and have a High paleontological resource potential if they are known to contain significant fossils anywhere in their extent, even if outside the Projectsite. High A (Ha)sensitivity is based on the occurrence of fossilsthat may be present at the ground surface of the Project site, while High B (Hb) sensitivity is based on the occurrence of fossils at or below 4 feet of depth, which may be impacted during construction activities. (AE(b), p. 8.) AE found that the west and southwest portions of the Project area as well as in the center to southeast corner have a high potential of preserving significant paleontological resources. AE’s desktop studies and field survey indicate the Project area has High A, High B, and Low sensitivity for paleontological resources (AE(b), pp. 19‐20.) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Geology at the Project site is characterized by middle to late Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits, early to middle Holocene young alluvial fan deposits, and late Holocene alluvial wash deposits. Pleistocene‐age alluvial deposits are mapped in the west to southwest and central to southeast portions of the Project area, and are known to be potentially fossiliferous. Early‐middle age Holocene alluvial deposits are mapped from the northwest corner through the south‐central portion, those less than 5,000 years old, are typically too young for the fossilization process to occur. Late Holocene‐ age alluvial deposits are mapped along the eastern boundary of the Project area within Montgomery Creek, these deposits are too young for fossilization but may overlie older Holocene‐ and Pleistocene‐age alluvial deposits. The older deposits have yielded significant fossils throughout Southern California from the coastal areas to the inland valleys. (AE(b), pp. 11‐13.)
AE conducted a record search of paleontological resources at Projectsite. No specimens or localities are listed on the Project site; however numerous localities are within 10 miles of the Project site which include subsurface geologic units likely found in the Project site at unknown depths. There is a high likelihood of fossil preservation underlying the Project site. This finding supports the Project site’s mapping as High A (Ha) and 712
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 42
High B (Hb), as the surficial Holocene‐age alluvial deposits overlie very shallow Pleistocene deposits with recorded vertebrate fossils throughout Southern California. (AE(b), pp. 11‐13, 17‐19.) Since the proposed Project will entail excavations to depths greater than three feet, there is a high likelihood to encounter paleontological resources. Therefore, in order to reduce potential direct or indirect impacts to unique paleontological resources orsites or unique geologic features, mitigation measure MM GEO‐1, which requires construction crews to receive Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, mitigation measure MM GEO‐2, which requires preparation of a paleontological resources monitoring plan, and mitigation measure MM GEO‐3, which sets forth the process to follow in the event of a fossil discovery, shall be implemented. Therefore, the Project will have less than significant impacts with mitigation.

MM GEO‐1:  Paleontological Resources Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

To educate construction crews about the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered at the NP‐2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, prior to the start of the construction the City of Banning shall retain a professional paleontologist (the “Project Paleontologist”) to prepare a Paleontological Resources Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The Paleontological Resources WEAP shall provide a description of the laws and ordinances protecting fossil resources, the types of fossil resources that may be encountered in the area, the role of the paleontological monitor, outline steps to follow in the event that a fossil discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Project Paleontologist. The Project Paleontologist or designee(s) shall present the Paleontological Resources WEAP to the construction contractor and each of the construction crews working on the Project during a preconstruction meeting. The Paleontological Resources WEAP shall be taped and presented to any construction crew members not present at the preconstruction meeting during which it was initially presented prior to such crew members working on the Project. This training may be conducted concurrent with other preconstruction training (e.g., biological resources, safety).

MM GEO‐2:  Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring.  Prior to the commencement of ground‐ disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist (retained under MM GEO‐1) shall prepare and implement a Paleontological Resources Mitigation Monitoring Plan (PRMMP) for the Project. The PRMMP shall describe the monitoring required during excavations that extend into older Quaternary (Pleistocene) age sediments, and the location of areas deemed to have a high paleontological resource potential. Paleontological Monitoring shall entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded areas and trench sidewalls. If the Project Paleontologist determines full‐time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the geologic conditions at depth, the Project Paleontologist may recommend monitoring be reduced or ceased entirely.

MM GEO‐3:  Fossil Discoveries.  In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the Project Paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and, if appropriate, collected. If the resource is determined to be of scientific significance, the Project Paleontologist shall complete the following:
713
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 43

1. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity should be halted to allow the paleontological monitor, and/or Project Paleontologist to evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. If the fossils are determined to be potentially significant, the Project Paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological as outlined in the PRMMP prepared per MM GEO‐1. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity.

In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the Project Paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

2. Fossil Preparation and Curation. The PRMMP shall identify the museum that has agreed to accept fossils that may be discovered during project‐related excavations. Upon completion of fieldwork, all significant fossils collected shall be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation. Preparation may include the removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing or repairing specimens. During preparation and inventory, the fossilspecimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level practical prior to curation at an accredited museum. The fossil specimens must be delivered to the accredited museum or repository no later than 90 days after all fieldwork is completed. The cost of curation will be assessed by the repository and will be the responsibility of the City of Banning.

3. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) for the Project, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring,stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated.

Source: AE(b)

714
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 44
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Discussion:

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are not presented in lbs/day like criteria pollutants; they are typically evaluated on an annual basis using the metric system. Additionally, unlike the criteria pollutants, GHG do not have adopted significance thresholds associated with them at this time. Several agencies, at various levels, have proposed draft GHG significance thresholds for use in CEQA documents. SCAQMD has been working on GHG thresholds for development projects. The most recent draft proposal was in September 2010 and included significance thresholds for residential, commercial, and mixed‐use projects at 3,500, 1,400, and 3,000 metric tonnes per year of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2E/yr), respectively. Alternatively, a lead agency has the option to use 3,000 MTCO2E/yr as a threshold for all non‐industrial projects. Although both options are recommended by SCAQMD, a lead agency is advised to use only one option and to use it consistently. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2E/yr for stationary source projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD significance thresholds evaluate construction emissions by amortizing them over an expected project life of 30 years. The analysis herein uses the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2E/yr. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact.   The AQ/GHG Analysis prepared for the Project (WEBB(a)) estimated GHG emissionsfrom fuel usage by construction equipment and construction‐related activities,such as construction worker trips, for the Project.

Table E ‐ Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions
Year
Metric Tons per year (MT/yr)
Total CO2 Total CH4 Total N2O Total R Total CO2E
2024 116 0.00 0.00 0.02 117
2025 114 0.00 0.00 0.03 115
Total 230 0.00 0.00 0.05 232
Amortized1 7.73
Source: WEBB(a), Table 4 ‐ Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions Note: 1 Construction emissions were amortized over a 30‐year period, as recommended by SCAQMD. 715
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 45
Evaluation of the table above indicates that an estimated 232 MTCO2E will occur from Project construction equipment over the course of the estimated 12‐month construction period. The draft SCAQMD GHG threshold guidance document released in October 2008 recommends that construction emissions be amortized for a project lifetime of 30 years to ensure that GHG reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational reduction strategies. Therefore, the total GHG emissions from Project construction were amortized and are included above.

Operational GHG emissions would primarily result from the electric pump at the booster station and infrequent visits by vehicles driven by maintenance personnel. Two pumps will be constructed (one for standby) and space for a third pump will be provided. GHG emissionsfrom the operation of the electric pumps were evaluated in the AQ/GHG Gas Analysis prepared for the Project (WEBB(a)) and calculated using the annual electricity consumption from the booster station and the City of Banning’s carbon intensity data. The electricity consumption is estimated to be 11,332 MWh per year and the resulting GHG emissions will be approximately 2,340 MTCO2E per year. There will also be limited lighting on the Project site. However, the GHG emissions from electricity usage will be negligible.

The Project’s GHG emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD recommended screening level of 3,000 MTCO2E/year. Due to the estimated amount of emissionsfrom Project construction and boosterstation pump electricity usage during operations we well as nominal emissions from routine maintenance, site lighting and electricity use, the proposed Project will not generate GHG emissions that exceed the draft screening thresholds.

Therefore, the Project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore the Project impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: WEBB(a); Project Description
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact.   As the proposed Project involves the construction of public utility improvements, it is not considered a significant source of operational GHG emissions. The Project will not result in any changes to the existing land use patterns within the Project area and its construction does not generate significant amounts of GHG (refer to Response VIIIa). Further, the Project will not obstruct implementation of any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the reduction in GHG emissions. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Source: WEBB(a)

716
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 46
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Discussion:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact.  Project construction will include the transport of fuels, lubricants, and various other liquids for operation of construction equipment. These materials will be transported to the Project site by equipment service trucks. In addition, workers will commute to the Project via private vehicles and will operate construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site and public streets. The booster station will be equipped with a portable diesel‐fueled emergency generator that will only be used during emergencies and routine testing. A number of federal and state agencies prescribe strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Hazardous material transport, storage and response to upsets or accidents are primarily subject to federal regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). California regulations applicable to hazardous material transport, storage, and response to upsets or accidents are codified in Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Title 8 (Cal/OSHA), Title 22 (Management of Hazardous Waste), Title 26 717
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 47
(Toxics) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and the Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory). These hazardous materials regulations were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations intended to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. Compliance with the measures is intended to significantly reduce a project’s risk to the environment. To ensure that workers and others at the Project site and surrounding area are not exposed to unacceptable levels of risk associated with the use and handling of hazardous materials, the City and its construction contractor are required to implement existing hazardous materials regulations, with compliance monitored by state (e.g., OSHA in the workplace or DTSC for hazardous waste) and local jurisdictions. Compliance with existing safety standards related to the handling, use, and storage of hazardous materials, and compliance with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (as noted above) would be required for the proposed Project. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the transportation, use, storage, and response to upsets or accidents that may involve hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of upsets and accidents during transit and storage. Therefore, potential impacts in this regard would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Sources: Project Description; CCR 8; CCR 13; CCR 22; CCR 26; CFR; CHSC 6.95, BMC b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact.  As discussed in Response IXa above, there is a potential for hazardous materials and chemicalsto be stored at the site forshort periods of time prior to transport and distribution, which could cause a release. However, the storage and transport of these products would be regulated by federal, state, and local policiesregarding storage and transportation of hazardous waste. Post construction, only infrequent and routine maintenance activities would occur, which would also be required to be regulated by federal, state, and local policies. Nonetheless, the Department of Toxic Substances EnviroStor Database identified two hazards material cleanup sites located approximately within a mile to the east of the Project site: Banning High School Expansion site (ID: 60001998) and Banning USD Proposed School (ID: 600002517). As of February 24, 2015 and October 22, 2018, respectively, DTSC determined that there is no further action. (DTSC‐A, DTSC‐B.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Sources: Project Description; DTSC‐A, DTSC‐B
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than significant impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one‐quarter mile of the Project site. As previously discussed in Response IXa, during Project construction hazardous materials and substances would be introduced to the Project site. Hazards materials and substances that could be found on the Project site would consist of; fuels, lubricants and other liquids required for operation of construction equipment.

Nonetheless, these materials and substances would be limited to the Project site. Additionally, Project construction would comply with state and federal regulations governing the use and transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed Project will not expose nearby schools to hazardous materials, substances or waste and impacts would be than significant.
718
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 48
Source: GP
d) Be located on a site which isincluded on a list of hazardous materialssites compiled pursuantto Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. The Project site, and adjacent areas are not listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s Cortese List, compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (DTSC‐C.) Thus, because the proposed Project site and its adjacent areas are not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts will occur.

Source: DTSC‐C
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than significant impact.  The Banning Municipal Airport is located approximately two miles to the east of the Project site. Land use designations within the City have been arranged to accommodate for continued safe operation of the Banning Municipal Airport. (GP DEIR, p. III‐62.) The Project site is not within the Banning Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC).  Additionally, the proposed Project is a booster station and reservoir identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and does not propose housing or job centers. Thus, the proposed Project will not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the Project area.  Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: ALUC; GP DEIR
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact.  The City adopted the Multi‐Hazard Functional Planning Guidance document in 1996. The document is organized into three‐parts, which include: 1) the Banning Emergency Plan; 2) twelve functional Annexes that describe the emergency response organization; and 3) a listing of operational data such as resources, key personnel, and essential facilities and contacts. (GP, p. VI‐42.) According to the City’s GP, the City does not have established evacuation routes, although depending on the location and extent of emergency, major surface streets could be utilized to route traffic through the City. (GP, p. VI‐45.) The Project is not proposed to need lane closure, therefore any utilization of Lincoln Street in an emergency would not affect the community or construction. Further, as an infrastructure project, implementation would not interfere with an adopted response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant.

Source: GP
719
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 49
g) Expose people orstructures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact.  The proposed Project site is located south of the City’s Very High and High Fire Hazard Zones, within which relief is minimal and hardscape (concrete, asphalt, and structures) and landscaping vegetation predominate. (GP, Exhibit V‐10.) The proposed Project is the construction and operation of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and a booster pump station, which would not likely aid the spread of wildland fires. Further, since the Project does not include habitable structures, Project implementation would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant impact.

Source: GP
720
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 50
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on
or off site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Hydrology and Water Quality Discussion:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than significant impact.  Construction of the Project may result in the discharge of sediment and other construction by‐products to surface waters. The proposed Project will disturb more than one acre of land, therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to comply with the statewide Construction General Permit (CGP) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (Order No. 2012‐0006‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). The SWPPP must be developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and implemented onsite for the duration of the Project by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). The focus of a construction SWPPP is to minimize soil disturbance, non‐stormwater discharges, construction materials, and construction wastes during the construction phase of the Project to prevent discharge of polluted runoff from the construction site. Coverage under the CGP requires submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and payment of fees and annual reporting to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Staff from the RWQCB may inspect the construction site periodically to ensure compliance with the SWPPP. 721
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 51
Development of the Project site will add impervious surfaces associated with the reservoir, booster station, driveways, and other site improvements. During Project operation, the Project has minimal potential to introduce sources of water pollution from the frequent maintenance vehicle trips.

The Project will maintain the existing drainage pattern. A concrete drainage swale will surround the reservoir and convey storm water to the proposed storm drain pipeline east of the perimeter wall. The runoff from the booster station area will be collected in a pipeline and connect to the proposed storm drain pipeline east of the perimeter wall. Storm water discharged to the storm drain pipeline will be conveyed off‐site where it would flow east to the municipal storm drain system at Lincoln Street. These future improvements in and of themselves will not contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Through Project design and compliance with existing regulationsrelated to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; CGP
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than significant impact.   Groundwater basins are naturally recharged through the percolation of runoff, direct precipitation, subsurface inflow, and artificial recharge. The Banning Canyon area receives water from percolation of canyon flowsthrough the gravelly soils of the canyon bottom. In addition, a stone ditch running southerly though the Banning Canyon provides intake areas to distribute water to spreading ditches, which interconnect with spreading ponds to enhance percolation. The San Gorgonio Subbasin is also recharged naturally with runoff from the adjacent San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountain. (GP, p. IV‐2.) The Projectsite is not a groundwater recharge site. The Project entailsthe construction of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and a booster pump, and does not propose the extraction of groundwater. Because Project implementation will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, impacts are less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; GP
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site? Less than significant impact. The Project site is generally flat and receives routine weed abatement. The Project will disturb no more than 1.39 acres, which includes frontage road improvements (widening, curb and gutter) along the existing ROW of the southern portion of Lincoln Street at the new edge of pavement.

The area within the construction footprint will be graded, compacted, and paved around the proposed reservoir and booster station. The Project site will be generally flat after construction is complete and the onsite storm water runoff will collect in a drainage swale that will be conveyed to the proposed storm drain pipeline where it would flow to the municipal storm drain outlet at Lincoln Street.  Through Project design, and compliance with existing regulations and policies for the control of erosion, the Project does 722
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 52
not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns already existing in the area and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site.  Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Source: Project Description
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
Less than significant impact. The Project site is located within flood hazard zone “X” as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06065C0817G (Effective August 28, 2008). Flood hazard zone X includes “areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood [500‐ year flood]; areas of 1 percent annual chance flood [100‐year flood] with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 percent annual chance flood [100‐year flood].”
There are no watercourses or wetlands located on the Project site. Stormwater runoff on the Project site currently flows into existing drainages or percolates into the undeveloped dirt area. As discussed in Response Xc.i the overall drainage pattern of the site will remain unchanged. Through Project design, and compliance with existing regulations and policies for proper drainage, the Project does not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns already existing in the area and would not result in flooding on‐ or off‐ site. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; CGP, FEMA
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant impact.  The proposed drainage system consists of a storm drain line located east of the Project site perimeter wall which will then convey storm water off‐site flowing east to the municipal storm drain headwall at Lincoln Street. The proposed Project improvements will increase impervious surfaces on the site and is expected to result in a negligible increase in storm water runoff that will maintain the existing drainage pattern. All on‐site storm water will be captured on site in accordance with State and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. A concrete drainage swale will surround the reservoir and convey storm water to the proposed storm drain pipeline. Runoff associated with the booster station will be collected in a four‐inch pipeline and connect to the proposed storm drain line.

Therefore, through Project design, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Project impacts will be less than significant.

Source: Project Description
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact.  The Project area is within Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06065C0817G, which indicates that the Project site is not within the 723
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 53
100‐year flood hazard area. (FEMA.) As such, in the unlikely event that flood flows pass through the site, there is little to impede or redirect flows by substantial structures. Thus, the Project will not place structures within a 100‐year flood hazard area or impede or redirect flood flows.  Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; FEMA
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Lessthan significant impact. Asshown on FEMA Panel No. 06065C0817G, the proposed Project does not have any identified levees or dams within the Project boundary. Additionally, because the proposed Project is located within flood hazard zone X, as classified by FEMA, the Project is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area and the likelihood of flooding at the Project site is very limited. Regarding the release of pollutants, in the post‐ Project condition, pollutants that could be released from the Project in the event the roadway is inundated are gasoline, oil, grease, dirt, and trash/debris. Regarding flooding, as discussed in Response Xc)iv, the Project site is not within a 100‐year flood hazard area. (FEMA.) Therefore, Project implementation would not result in an increased risk for the release of pollutants due to inundation.

Tsunamis are large waves that occur in coastal areas. The City is not located in a coastal area; therefore, there is no risk for the release of pollutants due to Project inundation by tsunami.

Seiches are seismically‐induced oscillation or sloshing of water contained in enclosed bodies including lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and swimming pools. This hazard is dependent upon the frequency of seismic waves, distance and direction from the epicenter, and site‐specific design criteria of the enclosed body of water. The reservoir will be designed in accordance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) D103 standards, which sets guidelines for the construction of welded steel water tanks. Project design will consist of interior support columns and foundations. As such, the risk for the release of pollutants due to Project inundation by seiche would be less than significant.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Project impacts regarding the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; GP, FEMA
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact.  The Project site is located within the boundaries of the water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Basin Plan is the primary document supporting the RWQCB’s regulatory efforts. As previously described, the Project will implement the requirements of an effective SWPPP during construction pursuant to the CGP. Through implementation of a SWPPP during construction and the proposed storm drain infrastructure, Project implementation is consistent with the requirements of the Basin Plan and will not conflict with or obstruct its implementation.
724
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 54
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Banning Storage Unit. Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) has formed and prepared a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) dated January 2022 that includesthe Banning Storage Unit. Because the GSP does not identify the Projectsite as part of future projects, compliance with existing regulations to protect water quality during construction and post‐construction, the impacts to a sustainable groundwater plan are less than significant.

Sources: Project Description, SGMA, RWQCB GSP
725
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 55
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Land Use and Planning Discussion:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact.   The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, interstate highway, or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility. The area to the north, west and northwest includes residential homes; the adjacent area to the south is vacant and undeveloped land; the adjacent area to the east is Montgomery Creek followed by vacant and undeveloped area; the area to the northeast is industrial buildings.

The Project is a part of the City’s expansion of non‐potable water systems identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP).   The Project site is designated as OS‐PA Open Space‐Parks and as identified in BMC

17.20.020, Public Utility Facilities are a permitted use for this land use designation and zoning.

The Project will not physically divide an established community. Due to the Project being consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Project carrying out the implementation of a portion of the IMP.

The Project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Source: Project Description, BMC

726
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 56
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Mineral Resources Discussion:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than significant impact.  Sand and gravel, collectively referred to as aggregate, is the primary mineral resource that is actively being developed in the eastern portion of the City. Weathering, erosion, and other geological processes have deposited materials from the surrounding mountains and hills, forming an alluvial fan with significant deposits of these mineral resources. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was developed to assure the preservation of mineral resources while concurrently addressing the need for protecting the environment. Under the direction of SMARA, the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, released a report identifying regionally significant mineral deposits in an effort to conserve and develop them; and to help in anticipating aggregate production needs of the region. (GP, p. IV‐82.)
Although the Project site is located within Mineral Resource (MRZ) Zone 3, which is an area that contains mineral deposits; the significance of these deposits cannot be evaluated from available data. (GP, Exhibit IV‐ 8 and p. IV‐83.) The City has specific areas designated as Industrial‐Mineral Resources (I‐MR) land use in the City’s GP to allow for surface mining operations on lands designated by the City or State as having significant potential for mineral resources. (GP DEIR, Table I‐18.) As shown on Figure 4, the Project site is not within one of these zones, and is therefore not targeted for of mineral resources mining by either the City or the State.

Additionally, due to the existing residential development to the west and east of the Project site, it is unlikely that a mining operation could operate at the Project site. Therefore, Project impacts regarding the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state will be less than significant.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No impact.  An approximately 6.5‐acre area of MRZ 2, where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or that a high likelihood for their presence exists, islocated in the eastern portion of the City along the alluvial fan of the San Gorgonio River that lies southeast of the Banning Bench, north and 727
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 57
south of Interstate 10. (GP Exhibit IV‐8 and p. IV‐83.) The Banning Quarry, operated by Robertson’s Ready Mix, was the only aggregate producer within the MRZ‐2 designated area of the City. (GP, p. IV‐83.) The proposed Project is not located within or adjacent to the Banning Quarry or any other locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan. Further, as described in Response XIIa, above, the Project site is not within the Industrial‐Mineral Resources land use designation in the City’s GP. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan and there will be no impact in this regard.

Source: GP

728
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 58
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Noise Discussion:

Temporary increases to ambient noise levels would occur during Project construction. Noise would derive from the use of various types of construction equipment such as compactors, cranes, excavators, generators and from a worker‐related increase in traffic within the vicinity of the Project site.  Sensitive receptors would include any residences, educational institutions and public parks located within 250 feet of the Project site.

The nearest sensitive receptor (residence) to the Project site is located approximately 70 feet to the west.

Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired sound typically associated with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities. Constant noise levels which varies with each area is called ambient noise. Human response to noise events is influenced by the type of noise, perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in the setting, time of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs and the sensitivity of the individual. The intensity of a sound’s loudness is measured in decibels(dB). Studies have shown that the smallest perceptible change in sound level for a person with normal hearing sensitivity is approximately 3 dBA. A change of at least 5 dBA would be noticeable and would likely evoke a community reaction. A 10 dBA increase is subjectively heard as a doubling in loudness and would cause a community response. Since community noise fluctuates over a time, a single measure called Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is used to describe time‐varying character of community nose. The Leq is the energy‐averaged A‐weighted sound level during a measured time interval, and is equal to the level of a continuous steady sound containing the same total acoustical energy over the averaging time period as the actual time varying sound. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a descriptor representing a 24‐ hour, time‐weighted annual average noise level based on the “A‐weighted” decibel. (GP, p. V‐40‐41.) Exterior noise standard for sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, hotels, motels, churches, and hospitals is 65 dBA CNEL. (GP FEIR Noise p. 6.)
729
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 59
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact. During construction, temporary increases to ambient noise levels may occur as a result of the use of construction equipment such as cranes, tractors, loaders and from a worker‐related increase in traffic within the vicinity of the Project site. During operation, the primary source of noise would be from the booster station pumps, which will be enclosed in a masonry block building that attenuates noise.

Sensitive receptorsthat may be affected by Project generated noise during construction and operation include private residences near the proposed reservoir and booster station.

However, Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the BMC outlines regulations related to noise in Chapter 8.44 (Noise).

According to Title 8, Chapter 8.44.085, sound emanating from capital improvement projects of a governmental agency is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 8.44. “Capital Improvement” is defined as major construction, acquisition, or maintenance/repair projects. Typical examples of major construction would include new street improvements, park development and construction of public buildings orstructures, and treatment plants. Structures include lighting, sewer and water pipelines and other related utility structures including treatment plants, gas, electric and other infrastructure, landscaping and drainage facilities, and all other public infrastructure.

Since the proposed Project involves construction and operation of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and booster pump station that is identified as a capital improvement project, the Project is exempt from any noise restrictions during construction. Any maintenance or repair of the reservoir and booster station once operational will also be exempt from noise restrictions. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable City noise standards and codes. Thus, the Project is not anticipated to be a significant new source of noise.  Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; GP; BMC; BOC; Ord. 847
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. Construction has the potential to generate ground‐borne vibration. In general, demolition of structures preceding construction generates the highest vibrations. The proposed Project site is currently vacant and does not necessitate demolition of any existing structures. Construction equipment such as vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers and pavement breakers can generate perceptible vibration during construction activities. Heavy trucks can also generate ground‐borne vibrations that vary depending on vehicle type, weight and pavement conditions. Other than the typical construction equipment and methods needed to construct the Project components, no significant ground‐borne vibration or noise is expected. Further, development of the proposed facilities will not involve the use of highly vibratory equipment within 25 feet of the Project property line adjacent to a sensitive receptor.

Since the Project construction methods are not anticipated to generate any significant sources of ground‐ borne vibration or noise above those that would normally be associated with construction, and any noise generated during construction will adhere to the Banning Municipal Code standards.  Thus, the Project will not expose personsto or generate excessive ground‐borne vibration or ground‐borne noise levels.  Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
730
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 60
Source: BMC
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact.   The nearest airport to the Project site is the Banning Municipal Airport, which is located approximately two miles east of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the Airport Influence Boundary and the Airport Compatibility Zones of the Banning Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. (ALUC.) The Project does not propose any habitable structures. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in the exposure of people to excessive noise levels sourced from airports and no impacts will occur in this regard.

Sources: ALUC; GP DEIR
731
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 61
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Population and Housing Discussion:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than significant impact.  The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a booster station and reservoir identified in the City’s IMP to meet the current and planned future non‐potable water demands. This Project is in response to the population growth planned for and envisioned in the GP. The Project does not include new homes, businesses, or other infrastructure, which would remove an impediment to growth. The Project will not substantially induce direct or indirect unplanned population growth that was not previously analyzed and disclosed in the City’s GP EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Source: Project Description, GP, GP DEIR
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact.   The proposed Project site is a vacant undeveloped lot with no existing housing. Therefore, implementing the proposed Project will not displace existing people or housing, nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.  Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Source: Project Description

732
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 62
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Public Service Discussion:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in orderto maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? i) Fire protection?
No impact.  Fire protection services are provided to the City through a contractual agreement with the Riverside County Fire Department, which in turn contracts with CalFire. The contract provides various fire related services, including emergency medical services, fire prevention, disaster preparedness, fire safety inspections, hazardous materials business plan programs and plan reviews. When an emergency call is received, the station that is physically closest to the emergency will respond, even if the emergency is located outside the station’s official “jurisdiction.” (GP, p. VI‐35.) Per the Riverside County Fire Department, there are two fire stations that serve the City: Fire Station 63, located at 49575 Orchard Road, and Fire Station 89, located at 172 North Murray Road (RCFD). Fire Station 20, located in the City of Beaumont at 1550 E. 6th Street, also responds to fire emergencies that occur in the City.  Fire Station 20 is approximately 3 miles to the northwest of the Project site. The closest fire station in the City is Fire Station 89, approximately 1.7 miles to the northeast of the Project and would likely provide emergency response services to the Project site. The Riverside County Fire Department is rated as Class 4 by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), a private company, which rates fire departments throughout the country based on a scale of 1 to 10, with Class 1 being the highest possible score. The City aims for a ratio of above 0.70 fire personnel per 1,000 residents, which would be 58 firefighters at GP buildout. (GP DEIR, p. III‐202.)
733
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 63
As discussed in Response XIV, the Project will not increase population. As such, implementation of the Project will not necessitate additional fire services and would not adversely impact service ratios, response times, or performance objectives. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR; RCFD
ii. Police protection?
No impact.  Police protection services within City limits are provided by the Banning Police Department (GP, p. VI‐32). The Banning Police Department has 35 sworn officers and maintains a ratio of 1.4 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. (GP DEIR, p. III‐200.) The City’s police station is located at 125 East Ramsey Street, approximately 1.7 miles east of the Project site.

As discussed in Response XIV, the Project will not increase population. As such, implementation of the Project will not necessitate additional police services and would not adversely impact service ratios, response times, or performance objectives. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR
iii. Schools?
No impact.  Most of the City is served by the Banning Unified School District, with a small area in the western portion of the City served by the Beaumont Unified School District. (GP, pp. VI‐24 – VI‐25.) As discussed in Response XIV, the Project will not increase population. As such, implementation of the Project will not necessitate additional school services and would not adversely affect performance objectives. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Source: GP
iv. Parks?
No impact.  Parks and recreation services within the City are provided by the City Community Services Department. The Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District also provides recreational facilities and services at County owned parks facilities within the City. (GP, p. III‐83.) As discussed in Response XIV, the Project will not increase population. As such, implementation of the Project will not necessitate additional park services. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Source: GP
v. Other public facilities?
No impact.  Other public facilities in the City include one U.S. Post Office, the Banning Municipal Airport, San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, and several public utility facilities operated by the City Public Works Department.
734
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 64
As discussed in Response XIV, the Project will not increase population. As such, implementation of the Project will not necessitate other public facilities. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Source: GP
735
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 65
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Recreation Discussion:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact.   Parks and recreation services within the City are provided by the City Community Services Department. The Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District also provides recreational facilities and services at County owned parks facilities within the City. (GP, p. III‐83.) The Project involves the construction and operation of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and a booster pump station identified in the City’sIntegrated Master Plan (IMP). As discussed in Response XIV, the Project will not increase population.

As such, the Project would not necessitate additional park facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Sources: GP; Project Description
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact.  The proposed Project involves the construction of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and a booster pump station. As discussed in Response XIV, the Project will not increase population. As such additional park facilities will not be required. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Source: Project Description

736
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 66
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Transportation and Traffic Discussion:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No impact.  Each county in California is required to develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that analyzes the links between land use, transportation, and air quality. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the County of Riverside’s Congestion Management Agency. The RCTC prepares and periodically updates the County’s CMP to meet federal Congestion Management System guidelines and state CMP legislation.  The most recent CMP isincluded within RCTC’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which was completed in December 2019. According to Appendix A of the LRTP, in the 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program, Interstate 10 and Highway 243 are the only roads in proximity to the Projectsite listed as part of the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. These roads are not directly adjacent to the Project site. Thus, the Project will not conflict with a CMP due to the distance between the Project site and these covered roadways have been accounted for in the GP. Construction of the Project may require temporary land closures along Lincoln Street. Road closure will not be required for maintenance or pedestrian facilities. No new traffic will be generated by the proposed Project.

The GP identifiesthatsidewalks, bike lanes, off‐street trails and golf cart routes are especially important along major roadways in the community. There are currently no bikeways within the planning area. Several Class II and III bikeways have been proposed along City streets. However, development of a network of bikeways is constrained by the existing condition of street rights‐of‐way (GP, p II‐65). The City of Banning provides transit service via operation of the Banning Connect transit system and has local routes in and serves Banning, Beaumont and Cabazon and is considered as part of the City’s local transit network. Regional bus service is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), with service to Hemet/San Jacinto (Route 31), Moreno Valley (Route 35), and Calimesa/Redlands (Route 36).

The Project site is not directly adjacent to Interstate 10 and Highway 243 or near any existing or future transit routes and would not conflict with CPM or transit plan. For these reasons implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, 737
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 67
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; therefore, there would be no impacts in this regard.

Sources: GP; LRTP; PASS; RTA
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(a) describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts and states “Generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.” As stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)(2), “projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Less than significant impact.  Construction of the booster station and reservoir would temporarily increase traffic in the area as a result of construction‐related vehicles. However, since water facilities are not trip generators and no new travel lanes are proposed with the street frontage improvements, there would be no net increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. subdivision (b). Impacts would be less than significant.

Sources: SB 743;
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. The Project proposes to widen the southern portion of Lincoln Street within existing right‐of‐way along the Project frontage and create a new paved driveway for access. Pavement width will vary from approximately two to eight feet wide. The existing pavement edge will be sawcut and the surface will be ground and overlaid with new pavement. A concrete curb will be installed at the new edge of pavement. All work will be performed consistent with City Public Works Standards. The Project does not include a substantially different land use to the area and will be compatible with adjacent uses. The Project will not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts.

Sources: Project Description.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not impact emergency access. Potential temporary lane closures along Lincoln Street may occur during Project construction. The Project will be designed with a new asphalt driveway near the western Projectsite boundary that will transition to a 20‐foot‐wide asphalt access road leading to the reservoir and booster station.

Moreover, the Project’s design will be reviewed by City Planning, Police, and Fire Department staff to ensure that there is sufficient emergency access provided. As the Project will be required to comply with the recommendations of applicable reviewers, it will not result in inadequate emergency access.   Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; GP
738
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 68
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural   value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resource Code section
5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Tribal Cultural Resources Discussion:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resource Code section 5020.1(k) b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.  On November 13, 2024, the City of Banning transmitted notices for AB 52 consultation opportunities to Tribes identified on the NAHC distribution list concerning the proposed project. The City of Banning received replies from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on November 21, 2023, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians on December 14, 2023, requesting review of documents, and that the review of documents does not conclude consultation.  Documents were transmitted via email to the Agua Caliente Band and the Morongo Band on February 6, 2024.  At the time this document was released for public review and comment, the City has not concluded the AB 52 consultation process with either Tribe and will accept and respond to any comments that may be submitted by either of the Tribes during the 30‐Day public review and comment period.

As discussed in Response Va Cultural Resources, the CRI (included as Appendix C) concluded there are no CRHR‐eligible resources present on the Project site and since the Project site has been previously disturbed by dirt pathways, plowing, and staging activities, there is a low likelihood that intact significant historical resources are buried. (AE(a), p. 20.) Regarding inclusion on a local register of historical resources, there are six (6) historical sites in the central core of the City that are designated as Riverside County Landmarks. (GP DEIR, p. III‐137.) These historical resources are not within or in proximity to the Project site. As also discussed 739
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 69
in Response Va, the results of the NAHC SLF did not indicate the presence of any sacred sites or locations or religious or ceremonial importance within the Project’s APE.

Although no tribal cultural resources have yet to be identified during the Project’s AB 52 consultation process, the Project will implement, mitigation measure MM CR‐1, which requires the construction in the vicinity of any find to be halted until a qualified archaeologist makes a determination as to the significance of the find.

For these reasons, Project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse change to any tribal cultural resources and impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Sources: AE(a); GP DEIR

740
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 70
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Utilities and Service Systems Discussion:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact. The Project entails the construction of new non‐potable water facilities, a new underground electrical line to connect to an existing an existing electrical pole, installation of an electric vault and transformer and fiber optic service on the Projectsite, and on‐site drainage facilities. The impacts of which are evaluated in this IS. The proposed Project is expected to maintain the existing storm water drainage pattern. All on‐site storm water will be captured on site in accordance with State and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. The Project will not require natural gas, water, or wastewater services. No new or expanded utilities are proposed or required to serve the Project. As indicated in the analysis in this IS, because Project implementation will notrequire relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities that cause significant environmental effects, impacts are less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; GP DEIR
b) Have sufficient watersupplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less than significant impact. The City Public Works Department provides domestic water services to the City of Banning. The proposed Project is implementing a portion of the City’s IMP, including a non‐potable water 741
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 71
storage reservoir and booster station that will not create a demand for water. Water usage during construction activities will be only that which is necessary for construction. Therefore, impacts to water supplies will be less than significant.

Source: GP; UWMP
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No impact.  The City of Banning Public Works Department provides sanitary wastewater services to the City of Banning, including the Project site. (GP, p. VI‐2.) The Project consists of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and booster station and there is no Project component that would produce wastewater requiring treatment. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Source: Project Description; GP
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or localstandards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than significant impact.  The proposed Project is a non‐potable water storage reservoir and booster station and after construction is complete would not generate solid waste. Solid waste would be generated during Project construction; however, since the Project site is vacant no structures are anticipated to be demolished and construction waste is expected to be minimal.

Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided by Waste Management Inland Empire and trash collected from the City is disposed at the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, and the Badlands Landfill. (GP DEIR, p. III‐211.) According to CalRecycle databases, the Badlands Landfill will remain operational until 2059, Lamb Canyon Landfill until 2032, and El Sobrante Landfill until 2051. (CAL‐R.) Given the number of landfills to which the solid waste could be redirected and their estimated closure dates, sufficient capacity is expected for the temporary increase of solid waste produced during construction as a result of Project implementation.

Thus, since the Project will only produce minimal construction waste and there are three landfills that could potentially accept construction generated solid waste, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

Source: CAL‐R; GP DEIR
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact.  The collection and disposal of solid waste would conform to applicable federal, state, and local plans and regulations, including AB 939 (Integrated Waste Management Act) that require local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste. Implementation of the Project would adhere to all federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste during construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed Project 742
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 72
would have no impact in terms of complying with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Source: AB 939

743
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 73
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Wildfire Discussion:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact.  California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) in November 2007. According to CalFire’s most recent FHSZ maps, the Project site is not located within a FHSZ SRA or LRA.  The Project site is located within the City’s High Fire Threat Zone, within which topographic relief is minimal and hardscape (concrete, asphalt, and structures) and landscaping vegetation predominate. (GP, Exhibit V‐10.)  The Project is not within or immediately adjacent to an SRA or LRA classified very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). (CalFire.) As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Sources: GP; CalFire
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than significant impact.  As discussed in the previous Response XXa, the Project site is not within or immediately adjacent to a SRA or LRA classified very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). (CalFire.) The Project involves the construction and operation of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and booster station.

The Project site is generally flat and there are no slopes within surrounding areas. The proposed Project will not have habitable structures. The facility would only be visited by a few people for service and maintenance. 744
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 74
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose Project occupants to pollutants from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and otherfactors, asthe Project site is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Impacts would be less than significant.

Source: CalFire
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than significant impact.  As noted above in Response XXa, the Project site is not within or immediately adjacent to a SRA or LRA classified very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). (CalFire.) The Project involves the construction and operation of a non‐potable water storage reservoir and booster station, construction of underground electrical line on the Projectsite, and widening the portion of Lincoln Road in front of the Project site. The proposed Project would also comply with safety construction and operational regulations for all proposed infrastructure as required by OSHA and NESC. For these reasons, the implementation of the proposed Project would not exacerbate the level of fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Source: CalFire
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than significant impact.  As noted above in Response XXa, the Project site is not within or immediately adjacent to a SRA or LRA classified very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). (CalFire.) The proposed Project does not include habitable structures, nor would it substantially alter existing drainage patterns. This proposed Project would be constructed in a relatively flat area. Therefore, impacts to exposing people or structures to significant risk including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes, are less than significant.

Source: CalFire

745
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 75
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Mandatory Findings of Significance Discussion:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐ sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potential to Degrade Quality of Environment:  Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated in the foregoing analysis, either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated would occur with regard to each to the environmental issues analyzed in this Initial Study.

Potential to Impact Biological Resources:  As discussed in Section IV Biological Resources, implementation of the proposed Project would not:
• substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; or • threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community.

The results of the BTR, (included in Appendix B of this Initial Study), and the analysis in Section IV Biological Resourcesindicate that with implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐1impactsto biological resources would be less than significant.
746
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 76
Potential to Eliminate Important Examples of the Major Periods of California History or Prehistory:   As discussed in the response to Section V Cultural Resources, according to the CRI, there are no historic period built‐environment resources present on the Project site. Although the potential to encounter intact and significant buried archaeological deposits are unlikely, with implementation of mitigation measure MM CR‐1, potential impacts regarding the elimination of important examples of California History or Prehistory would be less than significant.

Sources: Above Environmental Checklist; AE(a); WEBB(b)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than significant impact.  The proposed Project is implementing the City’s IMP and as such is consistent with local and regional plans. The Project’s air quality emissions do not exceed established thresholds of significance. The Project adheres to all other City land use plans and policies, and would not increase VMT.

The Project is not considered growth‐inducing as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) and would not induce, either directly or indirectly, population and/or housing growth beyond what is envisioned by the Banning GP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Source: Above Environmental Checklist; WEBB(a)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant.  Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of the aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources asitrelatesto human remains, geology and soils, GHGs, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems sections in this Initial Study. All impacts would be less than significant.

Source: Above Environmental Checklist; AE(a); AE(b) Geocon; WEBB(a) Note:  Authority cited:  Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 210808(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Francisco Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656 747
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 77

EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as per California Code of Regulations section 1503 (c) (3) (D).

REFERENCES
The following documents were referred to as information sources during preparation of this document. They are available for public review at the locations abbreviated after each listing and spelled out at the end of this section.

Cited As: Source:

AB 52 California State Legislature, Assembly Bill No. 52, September 25, 2014. (Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52, accessed January 26, 2024).

AB 939 California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill No. 939 Solid waste management, source reduction, recycling, composting and market development, September 29, 1989. (Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=198919900AB939, accessed January 26, 2024.)
AE(a) Applied Earthworks, Cultural Resource Investigation for the Banning NP‐2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California, November 2023. (Appendix C) AE(b) Applied Earthworks, Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Banning NP‐2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project City of Banning, Riverside County, California, December 2023. (Appendix E.2)
ALUC Riverside County, Airport Land Use Commission, BN. Banning Municipal Airport, Adopted October 2004. (Available at https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals‐13‐06‐‐ 20Vol.‐201‐20Banning‐20Municipal.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.) BMC City of Banning, Banning Municipal Code, April 29, 2020. (Available at https://library.municode.com/ca/banning/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=16203, accessed January 26, 2024.)
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map – Riverside West, State Responsibility Area and Local Responsibility Area. (Available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/osfm/what‐we‐do/community‐wildfire‐preparedness‐and‐ mitigation/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones‐maps‐2022, accessed December 12, 2023.)
CAL‐A California Department of Energy Commission Fuel Data, Facts and Statistics. (Available at https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes‐and‐fees/spftrpts.htm, accessed January 2024.) CAL‐R California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, SWIS Facility/Site Search. (Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed December 12, 2023.) 748
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 78
Cited As: Source:

CARB 2005 California Air Resources Board. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, dated May 6, 2005. (Available at http:  //www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/planning/air‐quality‐guidance/complete‐guidance‐document.pdf?sfvrsn=4, accessed January 2024.)
CARB 2024 California Air Resources Board, State and Federal Standard Area Designations, webpage, 2024. (Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps‐state‐and‐federal‐area‐ designations, accessed January 2024.)
CEC California Energy Commission, Energy Consumption Data Management System, California Energy Consumption Database, Electricity Consumption by Entity, interactive web tool. (Available at http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx, accessed January 2024.) CCR 8 California Code of Regulations, Title 8. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=IC BC28DB0D47911DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Defa ult&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1, accessed January 26, 2024.) CCR 13 California Code of Regulations, Title 13. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I1 43B9530D46811DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Defau lt&contextData=(sc.Default), accessed January 26, 2024.) CCR 22 California Code of Regulations, Title 22. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I6 F56A7E1D4B611DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Defau lt&contextData=(sc.Default), accessed January 26, 2024.) CCR 26 California Code of Regulations, Title 26. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I5 B751C00D44F11DEB97CF67CD0B99467&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Defaul t&contextData=(sc.Default), accessed January 26, 2024.) CFR Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, October 2012. (Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2012‐title49‐vol2/pdf/CFR‐2012‐title49‐vol2.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.)
CGP State Water Resources Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. (Available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo20 09_0009_dwq.pdf , accessed January 26, 2024.)
CHSC 6.95 California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95. (Available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=20.&chapter=6.95.&lawC ode=HSC&article=1, accessed January 26, 2024.)
749
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 79
Cited As: Source:

DOF California Department of Finance, Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State – January 1, 2022 and 2023. May 2023 (Available at https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates‐ e1/, accessed December 12, 2023.)
DTSC‐A California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database Banning High School Expansion. (Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60001998, accessed November 16, 2023.)
DTSC‐B California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database Banning USD Proposed School. (Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002517, accessed November 16, 2023.)
DTSC‐C California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese).2022.(Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type= CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+ LIST+%28CORTESE%29, accessed on November 16, 2023.)
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Flood Map Center: FIRM Panel Map No. 06065C0816G, Effective Date August 28, 2008. (Available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=banning, accessed December 12, 2023.) FMMP California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Riverside County Important Farmland 2016 West. (Available online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp, accessed December 12, 2023.) Geocon Geocon West, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Offsite Booster Pump Station, Banning, California, March 23, 2023. (Appendix E.1)
GP City of Banning, General Plan, Adopted January 31, 2006. (Available at the City of Banning.) GP DEIR City of Banning, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Banning Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, June, 2005. (Available at
http://www.ci.banning.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/Index/19, accessed January 26, 2024.) HSC 7050.5 California Health and Safety Code, Division 7, Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 7050.5, last amended 1987. (Available at
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=7 050.5, accessed January 26, 2024.)
IDA International Night Sky Association, What is Light Pollution. (Available at https://www.darksky.org/light‐pollution/, accessed December 12, 2023.) LRTP Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study, December 2019. (Available at https://www.rctc.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/12/RCTC‐Draft‐ LRTS‐120119‐GV22.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.)
750
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 80
Cited As: Source:

PASS City of Banning, Bus Schedules. (Available at http://www.banning.ca.us/351/Bus‐Schedules, accessed January 26, 2024).

PRC 5097.98 California Public Resources Code, Division 5, Chapter 1.75, Section 5097.98, last amended 2009, effective January 1, 2010. (Available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.98.&lawCo de=PRC, accessed January 26, 2024.)
RTA Riverside Transit Agency, Bus Route Schedules, September 8, 2019. (Available at https://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/riding‐the‐bus/maps‐schedules, accessed January 26, 2024.)
RCFD Riverside County Fire Department, Fire Stations. (Available at http://banning.ca.us/344/Fire‐and‐ Rescue, accessed January 26, 2024.)
RCZO County of Riverside, Ordinance No. 348 – Providing for Land Use Planning and Zoning Regulations and Related Functions of the County of Riverside, as amended through Ordinance No. 348.4997, effective April 28, 2013. (Available at
https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/2023‐06/Ord348‐04‐28‐2023‐FINAL.pdf, accessed December 12, 2023.)
SB 743 California State Legislature, Senate Bill No. 743, September 27, 2013. (Available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743, accessed January 26, 2024).

SCAG RTP SCS Southern California Association of Governments, The 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Adopted September 2020. (Available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/0903fconnectsocal‐plan_0.pdf?1606001176, accessed January 2024.)
SCAQMD 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993. (Available at SCAQMD.)
SCAQMD 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, August 2003 (Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/Agendas/Environmental‐Justice/cumulative‐impacts‐ working‐group/cumulative‐impacts‐white‐paper.pdf, accessed January 2024.) SCAQMD 2022 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2022. (Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/clean‐air‐plans/air‐quality‐ management‐plans/2022‐air‐quality‐management‐plan/final‐2022‐aqmp/final‐2022‐ aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16, accessed January 2024.)
USCB United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts Banning City, California, July 1,2022. (Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/banningcitycalifornia, accessed December 12, 2023 WEBB(a) Albert A. Webb Associates, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project, January 2, 2024. (Appendix A)
751
NP‐2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project 81
Cited As: Source:

WEBB(b) Albert A. Webb Associates, Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis City of Banning, Riverside County, California, January 19, 2024. (Appendix B) WEBB(c) Albert A Webb Associates, Energy Tables. (Appendix D)

LIST OF INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Planning and Environmental Services Department
Cheryl DeGano, Principal Environmental Analyst
Eliza Laws, Senior Environmental Analyst
Noemi Avila, Assistant Environmental Analyst
Jacqueline Gamboa, Assistant Environmental Analyst
Virginia Waters, Assistant Environmental Analyst
Julia Archibeque, Assistant Environmental Analyst
752
Appendix A
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impact Memo
753
WO: 2023-0076
Technical Memorandum
To: Arturo Vela, P.E., Director of Public Works
From: Eliza Laws, Senior Environmental Analyst
Noemi Avila, Assistant Environmental Analyst
Date: January 2, 2024
Re: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project The following air quality assessment was prepared to evaluate whether the expected criteria air pollutant emissions generated as a result of construction and operation of the proposed Project would cause exceedances of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) thresholds for air quality in the Project area. The greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment was prepared to evaluate whether the construction and operation of the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD draft GHG screening thresholds. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). The methodology follows the CEQA Air Quality Handbook prepared by the SCAQMD for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources. As recommended by SCAQMD staff, the California Emissions Estimator Model® version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) was used to quantify Project-related emissions.

The analysis herein evaluates the NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project (“Project”) located on an approximately 7.1-acre parcel south of West Lincoln Street, within the City of Banning, in Riverside County, California. The Project consists of grading, construction, operation, and maintenance of a new non-potable water storage reservoir with a capacity of approximately 60,910 gallons, associated appurtenances, on-site access road, and the construction and operation of a new booster pump station designed for the future ultimate flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The booster station will be equipped with two electric pumps with space for a third future pump. Each pump will be rated at 75 horsepower.  Regional Significance Thresholds
The thresholds contained in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook1 (SCAQMD 1993) and posted in a supplemental table as mass daily thresholds on SCAQMD’s website2 are considered regional thresholds and are shown in Table 1 – SCAQMD CEQA Daily Regional Significance Thresholds, below. These regional thresholds were developed based on the SCAQMD’s treatment of a major stationary source.

Table 1 – SCAQMD CEQA Daily Regional Significance Thresholds Emission
Threshold Units VOC NOX CO SOX PM-10 PM-2.5
Construction lbs/day 75 100 550 150 150 55
Operation lbs/day 55 55 550 150 150 55
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993. (Available at SCAQMD.) 2 Air Quality Analysis Handbook (aqmd.gov)
754
2 Air quality impacts can be described in a short- and long-term perspective. Short-term impacts occur during site grading and Project construction and consist of fugitive dust and other particulate matter, as well as exhaust emissions generated by construction-related vehicles. Long-term air quality impacts occur once the Project is in operation. Operational emissions sources are limited because the booster station pumps are electric. The primary source of operational emissions is the routine visits by vehicles driven by maintenance personnel and are considered negligible.

The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, reducing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 or more acres or more of soil, or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of this Project’s footprint (approximately 0.48 acres total), a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form would not be required.

Short-Term Analysis
Short-term emissions from Project construction were evaluated using the CalEEMod program. The estimated construction period for the proposed Project is approximately 12 months, as identified below. The default parameters within CalEEMod were used, except as identified below, and these default values generally reflect a worst-case scenario, which means that Project emissions are expected to be equal to or less than the estimated emissions. In addition to the default values used (shown in the CalEEMod output Attachment to this memo), assumptions for the Project relevant to model inputs for short-term construction emission estimates used are:
• Construction is anticipated to begin no sooner than August 2024. The construction of the reservoir (tank) will overlap with the construction of the booster station. The modeled construction schedule for the Project is shown below:

Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days
Grading August 1, 2024 October 2, 2024 45 days
Booster Station Construction October 3, 2024 January 22, 2025 80 days Tank Construction December 1, 2024 May 17, 2025 120 days Tank Coating May 18, 2025 July 19, 2025 45 days
Paving July 20, 2025 August 1, 2025 10 days
• The off-road equipment to be used for each activity during the construction of the Project is shown below and based on City engineering estimates. The engine tier for each piece of equipment is calculated using CalEEMod defaults for the statewide fleet average emissions factors.

Construction Activity Off-Road Equipment Unit Amount Hours per Day Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 2 8
Booster Station Construction
Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 8
Crane 1 8
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 1 8
755
3 Construction Activity Off-Road Equipment Unit Amount Hours per Day Tank Construction
Cranes 1 8
Forklift 1 8
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 1 8
Welder 1 8
Tank Coating Air Compressor 1 8
Pump (Dehumidifier, 11hp)1 1 24
Paving
Pavers 1 8
Rollers 1 8
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 1 8
Note: 1 The CalEEMod equipment list does not include a dehumidifier. The Pump was used as a proxy for the dehumidifier because it most closely resembles the dehumidifier. While the precise specifications for the dehumidifier are currently unknown, it is anticipated to be an industrial sized piece of equipment that is diesel fueled. The dehumidifier will only be required for a single day but will run for 24 hours. For modeling purposes, this equipment was assumed to operate the entire duration of this activity, which provides a worst-case scenario. • To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, the Project utilized the option of watering the Project site three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 74 percent for PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions. Two (2) one-way vendor trips per day were added to the Grading, Booster Station Construction, Tank Construction and Paving activities to account for water truck trips.
• Four (4) one-way vendor trips per day added to the Tank Construction, Booster Station Construction and Paving activities to account for material delivery and removal. • Approximately 9,050 square feet was assumed to be paved for on-site and off-site street improvements.
• Architectural coating includes both the coating of the interior and exterior of the new tank being constructed. The surface area to be coated for both the interior and exterior tank surfaces was calculated and entered into CalEEMod to estimate the emissions from these activities. • The Project site will require 317 cubic yards of soil import. Based on the CalEEMod default truck capacity of 16 cubic yards, approximately 64 total truck trips would occur during grading, or approximately 32 truckloads of soil would be delivered. The import site is approximately 1.5 miles from the Project site.
• The CalEEMod default for worker trips for Booster Station Construction, Tank Construction and Tank Coating were zero because typical building construction is not proposed. Therefore, worker trips for the Tank and Booster Station Construction and Tank Coating were estimated at a rate of

1.25 workers per piece of off-road equipment, which is the CalEEMod default rate for other construction activities (i.e., grading) contained in the User Guide Appendix C.

The results of this analysis are summarized below in Table 2. 756
4 Table 2 – Unmitigated Estimated Daily Construction Emissions Activity
Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
2024 1.60 14.70 15.90 0.03 2.39 1.43
2025 1.50 13.70 15.80 0.03 0.84 0.55
Maximum 1.60 14.70 15.90 0.03 2.39 1.43
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: See the detailed model output reports attached herewith. Numbers are the maximum of summer or winter emissions in a given year and may not match due to rounding within the model.

As shown in Table 2, above, the emissions from construction of the Project are below the SCAQMD daily construction thresholds for all the criteria pollutants in 2024 and 2025.

Long-Term Analysis
Long-term air quality impacts occur once the Project is in operation. Operational emissions refer to a full range of activities that can or may generate pollutant emissions when a project is functioning in its intended use, and typically include vehicle emissions, area source emissions that include stationary combustion of natural gas used for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, use of consumer products, and energy use.

Operational emissions related to the proposed reservoir and booster station would be primarily from the electric pumps and from the routine visits by vehicles driven by maintenance personnel and are considered negligible because the electricity consumption does not result in direct on-site emissions and this Project will be part of the City’s routine maintenance operations. As such, the proposed Project’s facilities are not anticipated to increase the frequency of ongoing maintenance routines.  Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Background
As part of the SCAQMD’s environmental justice program, attention has been focused on localized effects of air quality. Staff at SCAQMD has developed localized significance threshold (LST) methodology3 that can be used by public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts (both short- and long-term). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). The Project is located in SRA 29.

Short-Term Analysis
According to the LST methodology, only on-site emissions need to be analyzed. Emissions associated with vendor and worker trips are mobile source emissions that occur off site. The emissions analyzed under the LST methodology are NO2, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. SCAQMD has provided LST lookup tables4 to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts for projects five acres or smaller. The LST tables can be used as a screening tool to determine if dispersion modeling would be necessary. If project-related emissions are below the LST table emissions, no further analysis is necessary. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008. (Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds, accessed January 2024.)
4 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds 757
5 The SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds is used to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed.5 Based on this SCAQMD guidance, the Project will disturb approximately one acre per day during grading. Therefore, the one-acre LST was used to compare the on-site emissions estimated by CalEEMod.

The LST thresholds are estimated using the maximum daily disturbed area (in acres) and the distance of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptors (in meters). The nearest sensitive receptors are residential properties adjacent to and west of the Project site. Residential uses are also located north and northwest of the Project site, across Lincoln Street. According to LST methodology, projects with boundaries closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, a receptor distance of 25 meters (85 feet) was used to ensure a conservative analysis. The results are summarized below Table 3.

Table 3 – Unmitigated LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions Pollutant
Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
LST for 1-acre at 25
meters 103 1,000 6 4
Grading-2024 12.80 12.30 2.27 1.40
Booster Station
Construction-2024 6.79 6.93 0.26 0.24
Booster Station Construction
-2025 6.31 6.88 0.23 0.21
Tank Construction-2024 7.38 7.78 0.31 0.28
Tank Construction-2025 6.84 7.72 0.27 0.25
Tank Coating-2025 3.04 2.81 0.11 0.11
Paving-2025 3.58 4.97 0.17 0.15
Maximum1 14.17 14.71 2.27 1.40
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Note: 1 Maximum emissions are the greater of either each activity along or the sum of Booster Station Construction and Tank Construction in 2024 or 2025 as these activities overlap. Maximum emissions are shown in bold.

As shown in Table 3, emissions from construction of the Project are below the LST established by SCAQMD.

Long-Term Analysis
The Project involves construction of a new non-potable water reservoir and booster station. The long-term emissions from the booster station, as discussed previously, are primarily from the pumps and in the form of mobile source emissions, with no stationary sources of emissions present. The new booster station pumps are electric powered. The booster station will also have a diesel-powered emergency generator. According to the LST methodology, LSTs only apply to the operational phase if a project includes stationary sources or on-site mobile equipment generating on-site emissions. Because the emergency generator will only be used during emergency power outages and routine testing, emissions would be negligible. The City of Banning will be required to obtain an SCAQMD permit to install and operate the emergency generator. The SCAQMD permitting process would ensure that the Project meets regulatory requirements through the application review process and by placing specific operating conditions on the permit such as operating hour limits. As such, no further analysis of the emergency generator was prepared. 5 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2 758
6  Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are not presented in lbs/day like criteria pollutants; they are typically evaluated on an annual basis using the metric system. Several agencies, at various levels, have proposed draft GHG significance thresholds for use in CEQA documents. One of those agencies is the SCAQMD, which was working on GHG thresholds for development projects. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tonnes per year of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2E/yr) for stationary source projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. The most recent draft proposal was in September 20106 and included screening significance thresholds for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects at 3,500, 1,400, and 3,000 MTCO2E/yr, respectively. Alternatively, a lead agency has the option to use 3,000 MTCO2E/yr as a threshold for all non-industrial projects. Although both options are recommended by SCAQMD, a lead agency is advised to use only one option and to use it consistently. The SCAQMD significance thresholds also evaluate construction emissions by amortizing them over an expected project life of 30 years.

Short-Term Analysis
Construction-Related Emissions
The CalEEMod model calculates GHG emissions from fuel usage by construction equipment and construction-related activities, like construction worker trips, for the Project. CalEEMod also calculates the indirect GHG emissions related to electricity consumption (CalEEMod Version 2022.1 User’s Guide, p. 2).

The CalEEMod output results for construction-related GHG emissions provide for CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), refrigerants (R), and CO2E7 as shown on Table 4.

Table 4 – Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions
Year Metric Tons per year (MT/yr)
Total CO2 Total CH4 Total N2O Total R Total CO2E
2024 116 0.00 0.00 0.02 117
2025 114 0.00 0.00 0.03 115
Total 230 0.00 0.00 0.05 232
Amortized1 7.73
Note: 1Construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period, as recommended by SCAQMD.

Results indicate that an estimated 232 MTCO2E will occur from Project construction equipment over the course of the estimated approximately 12-month construction period, which is approximately 7.73 MTCO2E amortized for a project lifetime of 30 years.

Long-Term Analysis
Energy-Related Emissions
GHG emissions from the operation of the electric pumps for the proposed booster station were calculated outside of CalEEMod using the estimated annual electricity consumption from the new booster station and the Banning Electric Utility 8carbon intensity data from CalEEMod (455 pounds of CO2E per megawatt-hour (MWh)). Two pumps will be constructed (one for standby) and space for a third pump will be provided. The total estimated energy consumption for three pumps is estimated to be approximately 11,332 MWh per year.9 Therefore, the estimated GHG emissions from operation of the proposed booster station will be approximately 2,340 MTCO2E per year. There will also be limited lighting on the Project site. However, the GHG emissions from electricity usage will be negligible. 6 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2 7 CO2E is the sum of CO2 emissions estimated plus the sum of CH4, N2O and refrigerant emissions estimated multiplied by their respective global warming potential (GWP).
8 CalEEMod’s default statewide average carbon intensity was utilized because the Banning Electric Utility was not available. 9 11.332 MWh per year is an engineering estimate, which assumes that each pump operates at 3,777,408 kilowatts (kW) per year (six hours daily).
759
7 The proposed Project does not fit into the categories provided (industrial, commercial, and residential) in either the draft thresholds from SCAQMD. The Project’s GHG emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD recommended screening level of 3,000 MTCO2E/year. Due to the estimated amount of emissions from Project construction and booster station pump electricity usage during operations we well as nominal emissions from routine maintenance, site lighting and electricity use, the proposed Project will not generate GHG emissions that exceed the draft screening thresholds.  Conclusion
The conclusion of this analysis indicates that construction of the proposed Project will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by SCAQMD on a regional or localized level. The Project will also not generate a substantial amount of GHG emissions. No mitigation is required.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (951) 686-1070. 760
761
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 1 / 32
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Tank Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Tank Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Booster Station Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Booster Station Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Site Improvements (2025) - Unmitigated
762
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 2 / 32

3.13. Tank Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
763
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 3 / 32

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
764
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 4 / 32

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
765
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 5 / 32

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Construction Start Date 8/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 19.2
Location 33.92141057528512, -116.89859684921888
County Riverside-South Coast
City Banning
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5635
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility City of Banning Electric Department
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Parking Lot 9.05 1000sqft 0.21 0.00 — — — —
766
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 6 / 32
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

11.8 1000sqft 0.27 0.00 — — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.59 1.33 12.9 12.9 0.02 0.57 1.82 2.39 0.52 0.90 1.43 — 2,135 2,135 0.09 0.05 1.04 2,147 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.91 1.60 14.7 15.9 0.03 0.58 1.82 2.39 0.53 0.90 1.43 — 3,770 3,770 0.15 0.09 0.05 3,801 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.41 0.38 3.30 3.41 0.01 0.14 0.26 0.40 0.13 0.12 0.25 — 700 700 0.03 0.02 0.16 705 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08 0.07 0.60 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.04 — 116 116 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 117

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 767
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 7 / 32
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.59 1.33 12.9 12.9 0.02 0.57 1.82 2.39 0.52 0.90 1.43 — 2,135 2,135 0.09 0.03 0.61 2,147 2025 0.95 1.03 7.09 8.56 0.02 0.27 0.18 0.46 0.25 0.04 0.30 — 1,965 1,965 0.08 0.05 1.04 1,982 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.91 1.60 14.7 15.9 0.03 0.58 1.82 2.39 0.53 0.90 1.43 — 3,770 3,770 0.15 0.09 0.05 3,801 2025 1.79 1.50 13.7 15.8 0.03 0.51 0.33 0.84 0.47 0.08 0.55 — 3,760 3,760 0.15 0.09 0.05 3,791 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.41 0.35 3.30 3.41 0.01 0.14 0.26 0.40 0.13 0.12 0.25 — 700 700 0.03 0.01 0.13 705 2025 0.37 0.38 2.67 3.11 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.17 0.09 0.02 0.11 — 691 691 0.03 0.02 0.16 696 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.08 0.06 0.60 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.04 — 116 116 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 117 2025 0.07 0.07 0.49 0.57 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 115

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Tank Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
768
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 8 / 32
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.79 7.38 7.78 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,641 1,641 0.07 0.01 — 1,646 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.45 0.47 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 99.5 99.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 99.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 134 769
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 9 / 32
Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 195 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.13 8.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.24 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.35 1.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.96 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Tank Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.89 0.74 6.84 7.72 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,641 1,641 0.07 0.01 — 1,646 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
770
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 10 / 32
Off-Road 0.89 0.74 6.84 7.72 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,641 1,641 0.07 0.01 — 1,646 Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.24 0.20 1.83 2.07 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 440 440 0.02 < 0.005 — 441 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.04 0.33 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 72.8 72.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 73.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 0.52 143 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.52 193 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 771
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 11 / 32
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 131 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.21 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 192 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.2 35.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 35.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.2 49.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 51.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.82 5.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.91 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.15 8.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.53 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.54 1.29 12.8 12.3 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.52 — 0.52 — 1,959 1,959 0.08 0.02 — 1,966 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.70 1.70 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 772
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 12 / 32
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.54 1.29 12.8 12.3 0.02 0.57— 0.57 0.52— 0.52— 1,959 1,959 0.08 0.02— 1,966 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 1.70 1.70— 0.88 0.88———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 0.16 1.58 1.51 < 0.005 0.07— 0.07 0.06— 0.06— 242 242 0.01 < 0.005— 242 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.21 0.21— 0.11 0.11———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.29 0.28 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 40.0 40.0 < 0.005 < 0.005— 40.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.04 0.04— 0.02 0.02———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02— 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 110 773
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 13 / 32
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 62.1 62.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 65.1 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.99 5.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.30 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 99.2 99.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 100 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 62.1 62.1 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 65.0 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.02 6.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.32 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.66 7.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.01 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 2.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.08 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.33 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13

3.7. Booster Station Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.85 0.71 6.79 6.93 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,525 1,525 0.06 0.01 — 1,530 774
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 14 / 32
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 1.20 1.22 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 269 269 0.01 < 0.005 — 270 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.5 44.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 99.2 99.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 100 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 195 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.7 17.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.8 32.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 34.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.93 2.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.97 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.43 5.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.69 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00775 Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 15 / 32

3.9. Booster Station Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 0.67 6.31 6.88 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,525 1,525 0.06 0.01 — 1,530 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.27 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 65.7 65.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.9 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
776
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 16 / 32
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.2 97.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 98.4 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.21 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 192 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.24 4.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.30 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.91 7.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.28 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.37 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Site Improvements (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 0.39 3.58 4.97 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 748 748 0.03 0.01 — 751 Paving — 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
777
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 17 / 32
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.39 3.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.40 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 107 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.52 193 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.70 2.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.73 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.03 5.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.27 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 778
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 18 / 32

3.13. Tank Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.51 0.42 3.04 2.81 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 423 423 0.02 < 0.005 — 424 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.38 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 52.1 52.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.3 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.63 8.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.66 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
779
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 19 / 32
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 70.5 70.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 71.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.09 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.34 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 780
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 20 / 32
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 781
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 21 / 32
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
782
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 22 / 32
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Tank Construction Site Preparation 12/1/2024 5/17/2025 5.00 120 Tank Construction Grading Grading 8/1/2024 10/2/2024 5.00 45.0 —
Booster Station
Construction
Building Construction 10/3/2024 1/22/2025 5.00 80.0 —
Site Improvements Paving 7/20/2025 8/1/2025 5.00 10.0 — Tank Coating Architectural Coating 5/18/2025 7/19/2025 5.00 45.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Tank Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Tank Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Tank Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Tank Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
783
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 23 / 32
Booster Station
Construction
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Booster Station
Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Booster Station
Construction
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Site Improvements Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Improvements Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Site Improvements Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Tank Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Tank Coating Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 24.0 11.0 0.74

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Tank Construction — — — —
Tank Construction Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Tank Construction Vendor 6.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Tank Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Tank Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.89 1.50 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Booster Station Construction — — — —
Booster Station Construction Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 784 Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 24 / 32
Booster Station Construction Vendor 6.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Booster Station Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Booster Station Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Improvements — — — —
Site Improvements Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Improvements Vendor 6.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Improvements Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Improvements Onsite truck — — HHDT
Tank Coating — — — —
Tank Coating Worker 5.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Tank Coating Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Tank Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Tank Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Tank Coating 0.00 0.00 2,487 2,015 1,248

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) 785
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 25 / 32
Tank Construction — — 0.00 0.00 —
Grading 317 — 22.5 0.00 —
Site Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Parking Lot 0.21 100%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.27 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 786
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 26 / 32

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 31.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.45 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 23.6 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 787 Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 27 / 32

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. 788
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 28 / 32
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.0
AQ-PM 45.3
AQ-DPM 53.7
Drinking Water 59.0
Lead Risk Housing 41.8
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 20.7
Traffic 79.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 53.4
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 81.5
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 25.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 89.4
Cardio-vascular 98.2
789
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 29 / 32
Low Birth Weights 26.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 82.8
Housing 30.2
Linguistic 47.1
Poverty 87.6
Unemployment 77.8

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 25.92069806
Employed 1.000898242
Median HI 28.89772873
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 27.90966252
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 4.260233543
Transportation —
Auto Access 44.50147568
Active commuting 21.84011292
Social —
2-parent households 53.68920826
Voting 36.84075452
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 73.73283716
790
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 30 / 32
Park access 22.95649942
Retail density 14.44886437
Supermarket access 40.24124214
Tree canopy 1.642499679
Housing—
Homeownership 52.86795842
Housing habitability 69.62658796
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 47.17053766 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 91.21006031
Uncrowded housing 34.15886052
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 21.67329655
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 8.2
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 33.4
Cognitively Disabled 30.7
Physically Disabled 12.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 0.0
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
791
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 31 / 32
Pedestrian Injuries 88.4
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.9
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 56.6
Elderly 42.0
English Speaking 60.7
Foreign-born 38.6
Outdoor Workers 41.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 90.7
Traffic Density 62.4
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 63.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 39.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 72.0 792
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 32 / 32
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 13.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Per City
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Per City
Construction: Trips and VMT Two (2) daily vendor trips added for water trucks during grading, booster station and tank construction, and paving activities. Four (4) daily truck trips are assumed for material delivery and removal during tank construction, booster station construction and paving. One-way trip length for soil hauling trucks is approximately 1.5
miles.

Worker trips added for booster station construction, tank construction and tank coating because no defaults were generated by model. Worker trips estimated per CalEEMod User Guide Section 4.6.1 default for workers based on equipment list.

Construction: Architectural Coatings Tank surface area to be painted estimated for based on CalEEMod User Guide for nonresidential use. 793
Appendix B
Biological Technical Report and MSHCP
Consistency Analysis
794
BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT and

MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
For:

City of Banning
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Prepared By:

ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 686-1070
January 19, 2024
795
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
2 Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 6

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 6

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 6

2.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 General Biological Survey................................................................................................. 7 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping .............................................................. 7 Plants.................................................................................................................................. 8 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 8 Jurisdictional Non-Wetland Waters and Wetlands.............................................................. 8

2.3 Special-Status Biological Resources................................................................................ 8

3.0 REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Federal Regulations.......................................................................................................... 9 Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) ............................................................................ 9 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ......................................................................................10 Clean Water Act.................................................................................................................10

3.2 State Regulations ............................................................................................................11 California Endangered Species Act (CESA) .......................................................................11 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .....................................................................11 Native Plant Protection Act................................................................................................12 Fully Protected Species .....................................................................................................12 California Fish and Game Code .........................................................................................12 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.........................................................................13

3.3 Local Regulations............................................................................................................14

4.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................15

4.1 Land Uses .......................................................................................................................15

4.2 Soils ................................................................................................................................15

4.3 Vegetation and Land Cover Types ..................................................................................15 Urban/Developed Lands (DEV) ..........................................................................................15 Disturbed Habitat (DH).......................................................................................................16 Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS).....................................................................16 Unvegetated Channel (UVC) ..............................................................................................16

4.4 Common Plants...............................................................................................................16

4.5 Common Wildlife .............................................................................................................17 796
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
3 4.6 Jurisdictional Non-Wetland Waters and Wetlands...........................................................17

4.7 Special-Status Biological Resources...............................................................................17

4.7.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities............................................................................17

4.7.2 Special-Status Plant Species....................................................................................18

4.7.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species ................................................................................18

4.8 Nesting Birds...................................................................................................................18

4.9 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ..........................................................................19

5.0 IMPACTS ANALYSIS......................................................................................................20

5.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types...........................................21

5.1.1 Direct Impacts...........................................................................................................21

5.1.2 Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................................21

5.2 Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species.........................................................................21

5.2.1 Direct Impacts...........................................................................................................21

5.3 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species .....................................................................21

5.3.1 Direct Impacts...........................................................................................................21

5.3.2 Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................................21

5.4 Impacts to Jurisdictional Non-Wetland Waters and Wetlands.........................................22

5.4.1 Direct Impacts...........................................................................................................22

5.4.2 Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................................22

5.5 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages.........................................................22

5.5.1 Direct Impacts...........................................................................................................22

5.5.2 Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................................22

5.6 Impacts to Nesting Birds.................................................................................................22

5.7 Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................................22

6.0 REGIONAL RESOURCE PLANNING / MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS...................23

6.1 Reserve Assembly Analysis.............................................................................................23

6.2 Public Quasi-Public Lands in Reserve Assembly Analysis...............................................23

6.3 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) ........................................................................................................................23

6.3.1 Riparian / Riverine.....................................................................................................23

6.3.2 Vernal Pools..............................................................................................................23

6.3.3 Fairy Shrimp..............................................................................................................24

6.3.4 Riparian Birds ...........................................................................................................24

6.4 Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3)..................................................24

6.5 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2)..................................24

6.5.1 Criteria Area Plant Species .......................................................................................24

6.5.2 Amphibians...............................................................................................................24 797
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
4 6.5.3 Burrowing Owl ..........................................................................................................24

6.5.4 Mammals ..................................................................................................................25

6.6 Information on Other Species..........................................................................................25

6.6.1 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly ..................................................................................25

6.6.2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher .................................................................................25

6.6.3 Species Not Adequately Covered .............................................................................25

6.7 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) .............25

6.8 Construction Guidelines (MSHCP Section 7.5.3).............................................................25

6.9 Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C).........................................25

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................28 BIO-1 Temporary Exclusionary/Construction Fencing...........................................................28 BIO-2 Construction Best Management Practices..................................................................28

8.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................29 Tables
Table 1. General Biological Field Survey Conditions.................................................................. 7 Table 2. Vegetation Communities and Lasnd Cover Types in BSA...........................................15 Table 3. Summary of Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types...................20 Appendices
Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – Photo Log
Appendix C – Potential to Occur Tables
798
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Albert A Webb Associates (WEBB) has prepared this Biological Technical Report (BTR) for the proposed NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project (“Project”) as requested by the City of Banning Public Works Department (City) located in Riverside County, California.

The objective of this BTR is to provide an assessment of the existing biological conditions within the Project footprint (1.39 acres) and the surrounding biological study area (BSA; 100- foot survey buffer) for a total area of 4.53 acres. The BTR includes an analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to common and sensitive biological resources and potentially jurisdictional water resources. This report serves as the necessary biological resources documentation for the City’s review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The BSA contains a total of four land cover types and vegetation communities, including Urban/Developed lands, Disturbed Habitat, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS), and Unvegetated Channel. Additionally, a steeply incised ephemeral channel called Montgomery Creek bisects the northeastern corner of the BSA but does not intersect with the Project footprint. The Project footprint contains only Urban/Developed land and Disturbed Habitat. No special-status biological resources were observed during the field assessment, and none are expected to occur in the Project footprint. Further, no potentially jurisdictional water resources are present in the Project footprint.

The Project proposes permanent impacts to 0.09-acre of Urban/Developed lands and 0.39- acre of Disturbed habitat. Temporary impacts will occur to 0.01-acre of Urban/Developed lands and 0.90-acre of Disturbed habitat.

The Project is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The City of Banning is a permittee to the MSHCP and the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.

Recommendations of this BTR include temporary construction fencing, construction Best Management Practices, and nesting bird and raptor avoidance measures. 799
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
6 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Technical Report (BTR) presents the findings of a study conducted by Albert A.

Webb Associates (WEBB) for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project (Project) proposed by the City of Banning Public Works Department (City) located in Banning, Riverside County, California. The purpose of the BTR is to provide the City, resource agencies, and the public with current biological data required for the review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local regulations for biological resources.

The BTR provides an overview of the Project site's existing biological conditions, including vegetation communities, and documents the plant and wildlife species observed or detected during surveys. It identifies sensitive resources within the Project area and highlights the potential presence of special-status species. Additionally, this BTR assesses the impacts of the Project and provides recommendations to address potential adverse effects on sensitive biological resources that may occur as a result of Project implementation.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project is located in the City of Banning, California, within the County of Riverside (Figure 1 - Regional Map; all figures are provided in Appendix A). The Project is located just south of West Lincoln Street, approximately 0.2 miles south of Interstate-10 and one mile east of Sunset Avenue (Figure 2- Project Vicinity). The Project site falls within Sections 8 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted in the Beaumont 7.5-minute quadrangle map on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 538-280-001 and totals 7.51 acres (Figure 3 – USGS Topo Map). Photos of the Project site are located in Appendix B.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City is proposing to expand the non-potable water system through the construction and operation of a new non-potable water storage reservoir that is 24-feet in diameter and 21-feet tall with a capacity of approximately 60,910 gallons, associated appurtenances, on-site access road, and the construction and operation of a new booster pump station designed for the future ultimate flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The total area of disturbance, including Project construction footprint and construction staging area is 1.39 acre. A 100-foot survey buffer was surveyed as part of this study making the total biological study area (BSA) 4.53 acres.
800
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
7 2.0 METHODS

2.1 Literature Review
Literature and authoritative database queries were performed to assist in determining the presence or potential occurrences of special-status plant and animal species on the Project site or vicinity of the Project site. The following resources were reviewed:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles (Beaumont, Cabazon, El Casco, Yucaipa, Forest Falls, San Gorgonio Mountain, Lake Fulmor, San Jacinto, Lakeview) (USGS 2023A)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023)
• Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP 2004) • California Department of Fish Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2023)
• the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (CNPS 2023)
• U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC 2023A)
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2023B)
• USGS National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2023B)

2.2 General Biological Survey
On June 2nd, 2023, WEBB Senior Biologist Marshall Paymard, conducted a reconnaissance-level field assessment of the proposed Project footprint, including a 100-foot survey buffer, herein defined as the biological study area (BSA). The BSA plus Project footprint totals 4.53 acres. The field assessment was conducted on-foot to systematically assess and document the BSA for sensitive biota and their habitats, including other environmental attributes such as: topography, soil type, water features, and vegetation communities. Table 1 below provides the date, time, and average weather field conditions of the field assessment.

Table 1. General Biological Field Survey Conditions
Date/Time Climatic Conditions
June 2nd 2023 / 0900-1200
Air Temperature: 64-66°F;
Wind: 0-1 miles per hour (MPH);
Cloud Cover: 10%
Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping
Vegetation communities and land cover types present in the BSA were mapped directly in the field on a 200-foot scale, aerial satellite imagery-based field map. Following completion of the 801
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
8 field assessment, all vegetation communities were digitized and quantified using ArcGIS Pro software. Vegetation communities were mapped according to Holland (1986).

Plants
Plant species observed during the field assessment of the BSA were identified by morphology and recorded in a standard field notebook. Plant species that could not be identified immediately in the field were identified in the laboratory using taxonomic keys. Latin and common names for plant species included in this report follow, The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al. 2012).

Wildlife
Wildlife species detected during field assessments by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recorded in a standard field notebook. General information regarding wildlife species present in the region was obtained Center of North American Herpetology (2023) for amphibians and reptiles, the American Ornithologists’ Union (2023) for birds, the North American Butterfly Association (NABA 2023) for butterflies, and Bradley et al. (2014) for mammals.

Jurisdictional Non-Wetland Waters and Wetlands
Satellite aerial imagery and USGS topographic maps were reviewed prior to the field survey to detect any potential Waters of the United States, including wetlands, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; Waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter– Cologne Act; and Streambeds under the jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. All potential jurisdictional resources, if present in the BSA, were mapped in the field and then digitized using ArcGIS Pro software.

2.3 Special-Status Biological Resources
Special-status biological resources are defined herein as follows: plant or animal species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA; plants and animals considered by CDFW to be rare, threatened, endangered, or a Species of Special Concern (SSC) in California, which includes plants and animals tracked by CNDDB, and plants tracked by the CNPS as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1, 2, 3, or 4; plants and animals considered locally significant in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances; habitat areas or plant communities that are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife; jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters; and, wildlife corridors and habitat linkages.

A list of special-status plants and wildlife species evaluated for the BSA is provided as Appendix C to this report; the animal list is derivative of a nine-quad search performed in CNDDB (CNDDB 2023) and the plant list is derivative of a nine-quad search performed in CNDDB (2023) and CNPS (2023).
802
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
9 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
The FESA provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The lead federal agencies for implementing FESA are the USFWS and the U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a “take” under the FESA. Section 9(a) of the FESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” and “harass” are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species’ behavioral patterns.

FESA Section 7 is called "Interagency Cooperation," and it is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. A Section 7 consultation (formal or informal) is required when there is a nexus between endangered species’ use of a site and there is an associated federal action for a proposed impact.

Under the provisions of FESA Section 10(a), permits may be issued for the incidental take of endangered or threatened species, accompanied by the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), regardless of the presence of a federal nexus. The term "incidental" denotes taking that is secondary to, and not the primary purpose of, a lawful activity. To obtain Section 10(a) permits, an HCP must be submitted, demonstrating how the taking will be minimized and ensuring the species' survival. For instance, the MSHCP serves as a regional HCP developed in accordance with FESA Section 10(a), allowing for the take of listed species, provided the project is in compliance with the MSHCP.

The USFWS designates critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is the specific areas within the geographic area, occupied by the species at the time it was listed, that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of endangered and threatened species and that may need special management or protection.

Critical habitat may also include areas that were not inhabited by the species at the time of listing but are crucial to its conservation. Critical habitat designations affect only Federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. Critical habitat designations do not affect activities by private landowners if there is no Federal “nexus”, or no Federal funding or authorization associated with a project. Federal agencies are required to avoid “destruction” or “adverse modification” of designated critical habitat.
803
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS. Additionally, Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). The list of migratory bird species protected by the law is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international treaties (Canada 1916, Mexico 1936, Japan 1972, and Russia 1976). In the Code of Federal Regulations one can locate this list under Title 50 Part 10.13 (10.13 list).

The 10.13 list was updated in 2020, incorporating the most current scientific information on taxonomy and natural distribution.

A migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following:
• It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments. • Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.
• New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (MBTRA) amended the MBTA by stating the MBTA applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or U.S. territories, and that a native migratory bird species is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes (USFWS 2023C). The MBTRA requires the USFWS to publish a list of all non-native, human-introduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply, and an updated list was published in 2020. The 2020 update identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions (USFWSC 2023).

In general, the MBTA is used to place restrictions on disturbance of active bird nests during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). In addition, the USFWS commonly places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests. Currently, birds are considered to be nesting under the MBTA when there are eggs or chicks, which are dependent are on the nest.

Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource 804
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
11 projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects (EPA 2023). Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities).

Proposed activities are regulated through a permit review process. An individual permit is required for potentially significant impacts. Individual permits are reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or an approved State/Tribal 404(g) Program which evaluates applications under a public interest review, as well as the environmental criteria set forth in the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, regulations promulgated by EPA (EPA 2023).

For most discharges that will have only minimal adverse effects, a general permit may be suitable. General permits are issued on a nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular categories of activities. The general permit process eliminates individual review and allows certain activities to proceed with little or no delay, provided that the general or specific conditions for the general permit are met. For example, minor road activities, utility line backfill, and bedding are activities that can be considered for a general permit (EPA 2023).

3.2 State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
Originally enacted in 1970, CESA was repealed and replaced by an updated version in 1984 and amended in 1997. Plant and animal species may be designated threatened or endangered under CESA after a formal listing process by the California Fish and Game Commission (CDFW 2023). Approximately 250 species are currently listed under CESA. A CESA-listed species, or any part or product of the plant or animal, may not be imported into the state, exported out of the state, “taken” (i.e., killed), possessed, purchased, or sold without proper authorization.

CESA Section 2053 requires that state agencies may not approve projects that will jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy (CDFW 2023). The CESA authorizes that private entities may “take” plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA and CESA, pursuant to a federal Incidental Take Permit if the CDFW certifies that the incidental take is consistent with CESA (CFG Code Section 2080.1[a]). For state-only listed species, Section 2081 of CFG Code authorizes the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit for state listed threatened and endangered species if specific criteria are met. “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The California ESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves to: inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed 805
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
12 activities; identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring feasible project alternatives and mitigation measures; and disclose to the public the reasons for a governmental approval despite the project causing significant environmental effects. Moreover, CEQA affords protections to threatened and endangered species that are not listed on the federal or state list of protected species, and may consider some species as, rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(1) defines endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose “survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A rare animal or plant is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(2) as a species that, although not presently threatened with extinction, exists “in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or …the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered ‘threatened’ as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(c). CEQA also requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on riparian habitats (such as wetlands, bays, estuaries, and marshes) and other sensitive natural communities, including habitats occupied by endangered, rare, and threatened species.

Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game Commission to designate native plants as rare or endangered. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants that are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, unless authorized by CDFW via a permit or other agreement pursuant to the applicable regulations, or under certain other limited circumstances. The CESA of 1984 (Fish and Game Code Section 2050-2116) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900-1913).

Fully Protected Species
The State of California first began to designate species as “fully protected” prior to the creation of the FESA and the CESA. The designation and protection of fully protected species is established by FGC sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Except in very limited circumstances such as pursuant to necessary scientific research, including efforts to recover a species, or an approved Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), fully protected species may not be taken or possessed.

California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code regulates the taking of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the state. According 806
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
13 to Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.

Section 3503.5 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Section 3513 states that is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.

CDFW currently defines an active nest as one that is under construction or in use and includes existing nests that are being modified. For example, if a hawk is adding to, or maintaining an existing stick nest in a tree, then the nest is deemed active and protected under these Fish and Game Code Sections.

In Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Streambed Alteration Agreement is required for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (the Act) is a California state law that was enacted in 1969 to protect and manage the state's water resources. The intent of the Porter– Cologne Water Quality Control Act is to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water, and it applies to both surface water and groundwater. The Act establishes a framework for regulating discharges of pollutants into the state's waters and provides for the issuance of permits to regulate discharges. Under this Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) develops statewide water quality plans, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) develop basin plans that identify beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation plans. The RWQCBs have the primary responsibility to implement the provisions of both statewide and basin plans.

Projects with impacts to jurisdictional waters must demonstrate compliance with the goals of the Act by developing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans, and other measures to obtain a CWA Section 401 certification.

Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the SWRCB and the RWQCBs have the authority to:
• Regulate the discharge of pollutants into the state's waters. • Establish water quality objectives and standards for surface waters. • Develop and implement programs to protect and improve water quality. • Conduct investigations and take enforcement actions to prevent violations of water quality standards and regulations.
• Regulate the use of groundwater to prevent contamination of surface waters. • Regulate activities that may impact the quality of the state's waters, such as land use activities and mining operations.
807
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
14 3.3 Local Regulations
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is a longterm conservation plan designed to protect and manage a diverse array of plant and animal species and their habitats in western Riverside County, California. The City of Banning is Permittee to the MSHCP. The MSHCP was developed through a collaborative effort between federal, state, and local agencies, along with conservation groups, landowners, and other stakeholders. The plan covers an area of over 1.26 million acres and provides for the conservation and management of over 146 plant and animal species. The MSHCP includes several conservation measures, such as habitat restoration, enhancement, and creation, as well as the preservation of key wildlife corridors and the acquisition of conservation easements and fee title interests. The MSHCP also includes provisions for monitoring and adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective in achieving their intended goals.
, Because the City is a Permittee to the MSHCP, the Project must not conflictwith the local adopted habitat conservation plans, such as the MSHCP. An MSHCP Consistency Analysis is provided in Section 6 of this report.
808
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
15 4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Land Uses
The majority of the BSA is characterized by a disturbed and undeveloped vacant lot. In the western boundary of the BSA, there are single-family homes and in the eastern section of the BSA, is Montgomery Creek, a steeply incised channel is present. The northern part of the BSA consists of West Lincoln Street and additional single-family homes (Figure 2).

4.2 Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023) identifies four soil map units in the BSA (Figure 4- USDA Soils). The soils present in the BSA are as follows:
• RaB2 Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded • GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded • TeG Terrace escarpments
• RaC2 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

4.3 Vegetation and Land Cover Types
The BSA contains a total of four land cover types and vegetation communities; including, Urban/Developed lands, Disturbed habitat, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and Unvegetated Channel (Figure 5-Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types). These land cover types and vegetation communities are summarized in Table 2 and discussed below. (Representative photos are provided in Appendix B).

Table 2. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in BSA Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type Total
(acres)
Urban/Developed (URB/DEV) 1.88
Disturbed Habitat (DH) 2.56
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
(RAFSS) 0.06
Unvegetated Channel (UVC) 0.03
Total 4.53
Urban/Developed Lands (DEV)
According to Holland (1986), urban/developed lands refer to areas that have undergone construction or significant physical alterations, to an extent that native vegetation is no longer supported. These lands are typically characterized by the presence of permanent or semi809 NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
16 permanent structures, pavement, hardscape, and landscaped areas featuring various ornamental plants.

Urban/developed lands occupy approximately 1.88-acres in the BSA. These lands are characterized by single-family residences, a paved roadway (i.e., West Lincoln Street), and ornamental plantings.

Disturbed Habitat (DH)
Disturbed Habitat refers to areas that have not been developed but have experienced physical disturbances caused by human activities. These areas still retain a soil substrate and are primarily covered by non-native species (Holland 1986).

A total of 2.56-acres of Disturbed Habitat dominates the BSA. Disturbed Habitat within the BSA is characterized by bare and gravel grounds with an herbaceous cover dominated by non-native species, such as, foxtail brome (Bromus rubens), dove weed (Croton setiger), horse weed (Erigeron canadensis) short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and Erodium spp. Areas mapped as Disturbed Habitat within the BSA show evidence of repeated mowing.

Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS)
Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) usually occurs on alluvial fans in southern California, particularly in Riverside and San Diego counties. This variant of sage scrub is adapted to the unique conditions found on alluvial fans, which typically have well-drained, rocky soils.

A total of 0.06-acre of RAFSS occurs in the BSA within the banks of Montogomery Creek and none is present in the Project footprint. This community is dominated by California buckwheat, California sage brush, and an occasional single scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum).

Unvegetated Channel (UVC)
Unvegetated channel refers to a sandy, gravelly, or rocky area along waterways or flood channels where vegetation does not typically grow on a permanent basis. The presence of variable water lines inhibits the establishment and growth of vegetation, although some weedy grass species may be found along the outer edges of the channel. Vegetation cover in these areas is usually less than 10% (Holland 1986).

A total of 0.03-acre of unvegetated channel occurs in the BSA as the bed of Montgomery Creek and none occurs in the Project footprint.

4.4 Common Plants
Common plant species observed in the BSA were typical of disturbed habitat and included:
foxtail brome, dove weed, horse weed, short-pod mustard, foxtail barley, Erodium spp., and occasional patches of California buckwheat and California sagebrush. 810
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
17 4.5 Common Wildlife
Common wildlife species observed in the BSA during the field assessment include, American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia).

4.6 Jurisdictional Non-Wetland Waters and Wetlands
Montgomery Creek (Creek), an ephemeral channel exhibiting steeply incised banks, traverses the eastern portion of the BSA (Figure-5). This feature is considered an MSHCP riverine resource which is also discussed in Section 6.3.1 of this report. Within this reach, the Creek exhibits eroded banks with vertical spans surpassing 25 feet, while active flood plain maintains an average width of approximately 4 feet. The Creek's southern ingress into the BSA is facilitated by two 3-foot corrugated steel culverts originating beneath West Lincoln Road. The Creek intersects the BSA, however it should be noted that the Creek is absent from the Project footprint and therefore no impacts are anticipated to this feature.

4.7 Special-Status Biological Resources

4.7.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities
The CDFW assesses the rarity of vegetation communities, also known as natural communities, using the NatureServe's Heritage Methodology. This methodology evaluates communities at both the global level, encompassing their full natural range within and outside of California, and the state level, focusing specifically on their occurrence within California. Each community is assigned a single rank, denoted as G (global) and S (state), on a scale of 1 to 5. A rank of 1 indicates a community that is very rare and threatened, while a rank of 5 signifies a community that is demonstrably secure.

When a vegetation community receives a Rarity Ranking of S1 (critically imperiled), S2 (imperiled), or S3 (vulnerable), the CDFW considers it a sensitive natural community. These sensitive communities are to be addressed during the environmental review process of CEQA and its equivalent regulations.

Vegetation community descriptions used by the CDFW follow the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) using the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), 2nd Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). The MCV classifies vegetation communities based on floristic and structural details that are represented as alliances and associations. Vegetation communities mapped within the BSA, and described within this report, follow the descriptions and classifications as defined in Holland (1986). However, all Holland (1986) classifications used in this report were translated to the comparable classification unit under MCV to determine the sensitivity of the vegetation community being analyzed. If a natural community described under Holland (1986) did not have an appropriate direct translation within MCV, then professional judgement was used by the biologist to find the best corresponding association or alliance that would not jeopardize the conservation value of the vegetation community being analyzed. 811
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
18 RAFSS is classified as a sensitive vegetation community with a state ranking of S3 and a global ranking of G3. Due to its sensitivity, any potential impacts to this community would necessitate mitigation measures. However, no impacts are anticipated on this community as a result of the Project implementation.

4.7.2 Special-Status Plant Species
Special status plant species are defined herein as, plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA; plants considered by CDFW to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California”, which includes plants tracked by the CNDDB and the CNPS as CRPR 1 or 2; plants that may warrant consideration on the basis of declining trends, recent taxonomic information, or other factors, which may include plants tracked by the CNDDB and CNPS as CRPR 3 or 4; and plants considered locally significant or plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region, or as designated in local or regional plans (e.g., MSHCP), policies, or ordinances.

No special-status plant species were observed during the general habitat assessment. Most of the BSA and all of the impact footprint is composed of disturbed lands that lack suitable habitat for special-status plants.

4.7.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species
Special-status wildlife species are defined herein as, animal species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA; animals considered by CDFW to be “rare, threatened, endangered, or a SSC in California”, which includes animals tracked by the CNDDB; and, animals considered locally significant in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances.

No special-status wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment and no special-status wildlife species are expected to occur.

4.8 Nesting Birds
The Project footprint does not contain vegetation that could provide suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the MBTA and the Fish and Game Code. There are no trees or bushes within the Project footprint. Ground nesters are unlikely on the Project because of the regular frequency of mowing that occurs on the Project footprint. Limited suitable vegetation for foraging is within the Creek but are few in number and spread out. Because of the regular frequency of mowing and lack of brush or trees, nesting birds are not expected to occur in the BSA.
812
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
19 4.9 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
Wildlife corridors are linear features that join large spans of natural open space that enable the movement of animals throughout the landscape. Habitat linkages are areas that provide connectivity between habitat patches as well as opportunities for foraging, reproduction, and dispersal habitat for plants and animals. Habitat linkages help minimize the effects of habitat fragmentation as they function as steppingstones for wildlife dispersal.

The Project site is not located within designated wildlife corridors or habitat linkages identified in the South Coast Missing Linkages analysis conducted by South Coast Wildlands (2008). The proposed Project is located within the disturbed lands that are adjacent to a predominantly urban landscape. Because the Project is not located in or adjacent to an MSHCP Conservation area and no MSHCP linkages are identified in the Project area. 813
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
20 5.0 IMPACTS ANALYSIS
The purpose of the impact analysis presented in this report is to identify potential direct and indirect impacts that may arise from the implementation of the Project. The analysis has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the MSHCP.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, three types of impacts or effects are defined:

Direct impacts, also known as primary effects, are actions caused by the Project that occur at the same time and place. These impacts involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of habitats, directly affecting the flora and fauna within those habitats. Additionally, direct impacts encompass the destruction of individual plants or animals. Permanent impacts are direct impacts.

Indirect impacts, also referred to as secondary effects, are reasonably foreseeable and caused by the Project but occur at different times or locations. The CEQA Guidelines describe indirect impacts as follows: "An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change... which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect change in the environment" (Section 15064 (d)(2)). Examples of indirect impacts include increased ambient levels of noise or light, predation by domestic pets, competition with exotic plants and animals, introduction of toxins (including pesticides), and human disturbances such as hiking, off-road vehicle use, or unauthorized dumping.

Cumulative impacts or effects refer to the combined effects of two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or contribute to the amplification of other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can arise from multiple effects of the same Project or from several different projects. They can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions occurring over a period of time.

The impact analysis in this report examines these three types of impacts to provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential consequences associated with the Project.

Permanent and temporary impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types as a result of Project implementation are quantified and summarized in Table 3 (Figure 5).

Table 3. Summary of Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Vegetation Community / Land Cover Type
Permanent
(acre)
Temporary
(acre)
Total
Urban/Developed (URB/DEV) 0.09 0.01 0.1
Disturbed Habitat (DH) 0.39 0.90 1.29
Total Project Footprint 0.48 0.91 1.39
814
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
21 5.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types

5.1.1 Direct Impacts
As shown in Table 3, the Project footprint supports two of the four land cover types and vegetation communities within the BSA: Urban/Developed lands and Disturbed Habitat. Neither of these vegetation habitat types are considered sensitive. Permanent impacts total 0.48 acre and temporary impacts total 0.91 acre within these land cover types.

5.1.2 Indirect Impacts
No indirect impacts outside of the Project footprint, within the BSA, are anticipated to occur to sensitive vegetation communities. Although approximately 0.06-acre of RAFSS related to Montgomery Creek occurs in the BSA, the project permanent and temporary impact areas do not affect the RAFSS.

To ensure construction activities avoid the RAFSS associated with Montgomery Creek, recommendation BIO-1 (Temporary Exclusionary/Construction Fencing) is provided in Section 7 of this report. This measure will minimize the risk of accidental impacts to the RAFFS within the BSA.

5.2 Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species

5.2.1 Direct Impacts
As shown in Table 3, Project impacts affect Urban/Developed lands and Disturbed Habitat, which do not provide suitable habitat for special-status plants. In addition, no special-status plants were identified during the biological assessment or focused wildlife surveys conducted within the Project footprint. Therefore, no direct impacts are expected to occur to specialstatus plant species because of Project implementation.5.2.2 Indirect Impacts No special-status plants occur in the Project within the Project BSA. As such, no indirect impacts are anticipated to occur to special-status plants.

5.3 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species

5.3.1 Direct Impacts
No special-status wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment and no special-status wildlife species are expected to occur given the disturbed nature of the site and associated habitat types. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status wildlife are expected to occur.

5.3.2 Indirect Impacts
No special-status wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment and no special-status wildlife species are expected to occur within the BSA. Therefore, no indirect impacts are expected to occur to special status wildlife species. 815
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
22 5.4 Impacts to Jurisdictional Non-Wetland Waters and Wetlands

5.4.1 Direct Impacts
No potentially jurisdictional waters occur in the Project footprint. Therefore, no direct impacts are anticipated.

5.4.2 Indirect Impacts
Montgomery Creek occurs in the BSA. Therefore, indirect impacts to Montgomery Creek could occur as a result of Project implementation if Project activities stray outside the Project footprint and the appropriate measures are not taken. As such, Recommendations BIO-1 (Temporary Exclusionary/Construction Fencing) and BIO-2 (Construction Best Management Practices) are included in Section 7.0 to avoid indirect impacts to Montgomery Creek.

5.5 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages

5.5.1 Direct Impacts
No wildlife corridors or linkages occur within the Project footprint or BSA. As such, no direct impacts or interferences are anticipated to occur to wildlife corridors and habitat linkages.

5.5.2 Indirect Impacts
No wildlife corridors or linkages occur within the BSA. As such, no indirect impacts or indirect interferences are anticipated to occur to wildlife corridors and habitat linkages.

5.6 Impacts to Nesting Birds
No suitable habitat for nesting birds is located within the BSA, including the Project footprint.

Ground nesters are not expected in the Project footprint because of frequent mowing. There is limited suitable habitat for foraging birds within the Creek. Because Project impacts are limited to the Project footprint and the quality of vegetation is scarce in the Creek and more suitable for foraging then nesting, no impacts to nesting birds are anticipated to occur.

5.7 Cumulative Impacts
It is anticipated that the proposed Project will not result in cumulative impacts on the biological resources within the Project area or the surrounding region. This conclusion is based on several factors. Firstly, the Project is situated within an already established semi-urban environment where urban and developed lands dominate. Secondly, the impacts associated with the Project will occur in existing disturbed lands. Therefore, the overall cumulative effects on the biological resources are expected to be minimal. 816
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
23 6.0 REGIONAL RESOURCE PLANNING / MSHCP

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
To check consistency of the proposed Project with the MSHCP, a consistency analysis was conducted as part of this BTR. Shapefiles obtained from the Riverside County Mapping Portal (Riverside 2023) were downloaded and integrated into GIS to determine if the Project site falls within the MSHCP Criteria Area, Public/Quasi Public Lands (PQP Lands), or intersects with any required biota survey areas, including Sub Area Plan boundaries.

6.1 Reserve Assembly Analysis
The Project is a Public Project (Permittee-sponsored) and does not occur in the Criteria Area; therefore, a Reserve Assembly Analysis is not required. The Project will not conflict with Section 3.0 of the MSCHP.

6.2 Public Quasi-Public Lands in Reserve Assembly Analysis The proposed Project does not occur in, or adjacent to, PQP Lands. No direct or indirect impacts will occur to PQP lands.

6.3 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2)

6.3.1 Riparian / Riverine
Riparian/riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year (MSHCP 2004).

Results: Riparian/riverine resources were assessed during the biological assessment in the Project footprint and BSA, as described in Section 2.2 of this report. No riparian/riverine resources are present in the Project impact footprint and therefore no direct impacts to MSHCP riparian habitat are anticipated. However, riverine resources (i.e., Montgomery Creek with 0.06-acre of RAFSS) do occur in the Project BSA outside of the direct impact footprint and could be subject to indirect impacts if Project activities stray outside the Project footprint.

No riparian habitat is within the Project footprint and BSA. Recommendations BIO-1 and BIO2 are included in Section 7.0 to avoid indirect impacts to riparian/riverine resources. Therefore, because no impacts directly or indirectly are proposed to Montgomery Creek which is the area of the BSA that has riverine resources, no DBESP or mitigation is necessary.

6.3.2 Vernal Pools
Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (i.e., soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or 817
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
24 vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetland plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season.

Results: The project site does not support soils or plants suitable to support vernal pools.

Additionally, no areas of seasonal ponding identified during aerial photo reviews, nor vernal pools were identified in the Project footprint or the BSA during the site investigation. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts are expected to occur.

6.3.3 Fairy Shrimp
No vernal pools or other suitable fairy shrimp habitat (i.e., ponding or suitable soils) were found in the Project footprint or BSA during the site investigation and historical aerial reviews.

Therefore, fairy shrimp surveys were not conducted as part of the Project evaluation due to the absence of suitable habitat. No impacts to listed fairy shrimp species are expected to occur.

6.3.4 Riparian Birds
No suitable habitat is present for riparian bird species (i.e., least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or yellow-billed cuckoo) in the Project footprint or BSA. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts are expected to occur to riparian birds.

6.4 Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3)
The Project footprint and BSA are not located in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

6.5 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2)

6.5.1 Criteria Area Plant Species
The proposed Project footprint and BSA is not located in a Section 6.3.2 mapped survey area for Criteria Area Plant species. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

6.5.2 Amphibians
The proposed Project footprint and BSA is not located in a survey area for amphibians.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, addressing amphibians.

6.5.3 Burrowing Owl
The proposed Project footprint and BSA is not located in a survey area for burrowing owl.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. 818
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
25 6.5.4 Mammals
The proposed Project footprint and BSA is not located in a survey area for mammals.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

6.6 Information on Other Species

6.6.1 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly
The proposed Project is not located within an area with mapped Delhi soils. No suitable habitat is present for this species within the BSA or Project footprint. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, addressing the Delhi sands flower-loving fly.

6.6.2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The BSA contains RAFSS; however, the Project footprint does not contain RAFSS, therefore suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher will not be directly or indirectly impacted and the Project would not conflict with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

6.6.3 Species Not Adequately Covered
No suitable habitat for the MSHCP Table 9-3 species (a total of 28 species) is present on the Project site, and none of the species were observed on the Project footprint or BSA during the field investigation. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly impact species not adequately covered listed in Table 9-3.

6.7 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP Section 6.1.4)
The proposed Project does not have any adjacency or on-site connection to existing MSHCP Conservation areas or lands designated for conservation purposes. The Project will not conflict with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

6.8 Construction Guidelines (MSHCP Section 7.5.3)
The Project is not located in the Criteria Area or PQP Lands, therefore the construction guidelines of Section 7.5.3 are not applicable.

6.9 Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C) The Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in MSHCP Volume 1, Appendix C and replicated below, are applicable to all projects.

1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of 819
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
26 the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.

2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.

3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.

4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.

5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.

6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.

7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream.

8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.

9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.
820
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
27 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.

11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.

12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.

13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).

14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.

15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs.
821
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
28 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
BIO-1 Temporary Exclusionary/Construction Fencing
To protect Montgomery Creek sensitive habitats (RAFSS) and the riverine habitat which are adjacent to the Project footprint, within the BSA, temporary exclusionary construction fencing will be installed at the Project footprint boundary where they are adjacent to Montgomery Creek with the Project Biologist present to ensure the fencing is placed in the correct areas of the site (see Figure 6 – Exclusionary Fencing of this report). The purpose of fencing shall be to prevent disturbances to adjacent sensitive habitats and to avoid the spread of debris from the construction zone into adjacent areas.

BIO-2 Construction Best Management Practices
Implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion, manage stormwater runoff, and minimize the release of pollutants. Examples of BMPs include sediment and erosion control measures, including fiber rolls and silt fencing placed around off-site aquatic features in a manner to deter sediment deposition and potential pollutant run-off.

Implement measures to prevent the discharge of pollutants into storm drains or nearby water bodies. This may include proper storage and handling of construction materials, spill prevention and response procedures, and regular site clean-up.

Provide training to construction personnel in BMP implementation, and the importance of preventing pollution. Ensure all employees are aware of their responsibilities in implementing BMPs for stormwater protection.

Establish procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the SWPP plan, including regular inspections, and reporting any incidents or deviations from the plan. Make necessary adjustments to the plan as needed.
822
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
29 8.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologist Union (AOU). 2023. Checklist of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. https://checklist.americanornithology.org/taxa/. [accessed May 2023] Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012.

The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp.

Bradley, R.D., Ammerman, L.K., Baker, R.J., Bradley, L.C., Cook, J.A., Dowler, R.C., Jones, C., Schmidly, D.F., Stangl, F.B., Van Den Bussche, R.A., and Wursig, N. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Occasional Papers. Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 327
CDFW 2023. California Endangered Species Act. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/Permitting [accessed May 2023]
Center for North American Herpetology (CNAH). 2023. - http://www.cnah.org/. [accessed May 2023].

CNDDB. 2023. California Natural Diversity Data Base RareFind 5. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx [accessed May 2023].

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5).

Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed May 2023].

DFG.2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game
Dudek 2004. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

EPA.2023. Summary of the Clean Water Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-cleanwater-act [accessed May 2023).

Holland.1986. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California”.

NABA. 2023. North American Butterfly Association. https://www.naba.org/ [accessed May 2023].

Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second 2nd Edition.

South Coast Wildlands. 2008. South Coast missing linkages: A wildland network for the South Coast ecoregion. Retrieved from: http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCMLRegionalReport.pdf. March 2008.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov [accessed May 2023].

USGS.2023A. United States Geological Service (USGS), 1979. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map, California USGS.2023B. United States Geological Service (USGS), National Hydrography Dataset. https://www.usgs.gov/national-hydrography/national-hydrography-dataset [accessed May 2023) USFWS 2023A. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ [accessed May 2023].
823
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report
30 USFWS 2023B. National Wetlands Inventory [accessed May 2023]. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper USFWS 2023C. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act1918. [accessed May 2023) 824
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report

APPENDIX A
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report

APPENDIX B
832
833
834
2 835
3 836
4 837
NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project
Biological Technical Report

APPENDIX C
838
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated