Banning City Council
November 12, 2024

RESOLUTION 2024-180

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

APPROVING AN EASEMENT PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA EDISON FOR AN EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF BANNING WATER CANYON WHEREAS, Southern California Edison (SCE) owns and maintains an electrical distribution system in the City of Banning Water Canyon located along the northern boundary of the City and within an existing easement; and
WHEREAS, SCE’s electrical distribution system was damaged during the Apple Fire which started on July 31, 2020 and as part of the repair of the damaged system SCE relocated approximately 1,800 feet of overhead lines and associated power poles along an existing maintenance road on the City’s property; and
WHEREAS, in order to maintain permanent access to the relocated facilities, SCE must obtain a permanent easement by the City; and
WHEREAS, SCE will pay the City an appraised amount of $4,700 prior to the issuance of a Grant of Easement.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the Easement Purchase and Sale Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and authorizes the City Manager to make non-substantive changes to the Easement Purchase and Sale Agreement and to execute the Easement Purchase and Sale Agreement on behalf of the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council approves the Grant of Easement attached as Exhibit “A” to the Easement Purchase and Sale Agreement, and authorizes the City Manager to make nonsubstantive changes to the Grant of Easement and to execute the Grant of Easement on behalf of the City Council upon payment by Southern California Edison.

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 12th day of November 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:
649
Resolution 2024-180

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

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
650
Resolution 2024-180

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-180, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of November 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
651
Resolution 2024-180

EXHIBIT A
Easement Purchase and Sale Agreement
(Grant of Easement is an Attachment to the Easement Purchase and Sale Agreement) 652

13030-0001\2986942v2.doc

EASEMENT PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of , 2024 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF BANNING, a California municipal corporation (“Grantor”) and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (“Grantee”).

RECITALS:

A. Grantor believes it owns that certain real property (the “Property”) located in Riverside County, California, as more particularly described in the form of easement attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Easement”).

B. Grantor desires to sell the Easement to Grantee, and Grantee desires to purchase the Easement from Grantor, at the price and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

TERMS:

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows:

1. Purchase and Sale; Purchase Price. In consideration for payment of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($4,700.00.) (the “Purchase Price”), Grantor hereby agrees to execute and deliver the Easement (duly acknowledged by a notary) to Grantee for recording, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

2. Closing. Grantor shall execute and deliver the Easement (duly acknowledged) to Grantee within 30 days after Grantee’s payment of the Purchase Price to Grantor. Grantee shall pay any transfer taxes, filing or recording fees, or other costs, if any, associated with the Easement.

3. “AS IS” Sale. Grantor makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, to Grantee regarding the Property or title thereto or any other matter. Grantee acknowledges that it may obtain a title report and title insurance, and has had an opportunity to inspect the Property.

4. No Brokers. Grantor represents and warrants to Grantee that Grantor has not dealt with any broker or finder in connection with the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, and Grantor agrees to indemnify, defend and save Grantee harmless from any claims made by any brokers or finders claiming to have dealt with Grantor. Grantee represents and warrants to Grantor that Grantee has not dealt with any broker or finder in connection with the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, and Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and save Grantor harmless from any claims made by any brokers or finders claiming to have dealt with Grantee. The terms of this Section shall survive the Closing.

5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the exhibits attached hereto and thereto, contain the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and any prior agreements, written or oral, are superseded by this Agreement and shall be of no force or effect. No addition or modification of any term or provision of this 653

13030-0001\2986942v2.doc
Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties.

6. Partial Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and each remaining term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable.

7. Construction; Successors and Assigns. The parties acknowledge that each party has reviewed, commented on and approved this Agreement, and the rule of construction that provides ambiguities within this Agreement are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the permitted successors and assigns of each party hereto.

8. Counterparts; Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. All executed counterparts shall constitute one agreement, and each counterpart shall be deemed an original, Grantor and Grantee each hereby acknowledges and agrees that such party (i) intends to be bound by the signatures on any document sent by electronic mail, (ii) is aware that the other party will rely on such signatures, and (iii) hereby waives any defenses to the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement based on the foregoing forms of signature.

9. Counsel. Grantor and Grantee each hereby acknowledge and represent to the other that they have had sufficient opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel selected in their sole discretion and have either consulted or chosen, in their sole discretion, not to consult with such legal counsel.

10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any dispute arising hereunder that the parties are unable to resolve shall be resolved in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.

11. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for the payment and performance of all obligations under this Agreement.

12. Notices. All notices and demands which any party hereto may be required or desires to serve upon any other party under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be addressed as follows:

If delivered to Grantee:

Southern California Edison Company
2 Innovationway, 2nd Floor
Pomona, CA 91768
Attn: Title & Real Estate Services
654

13030-0001\2986942v2.doc
If delivered to Grantor:

City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
Attn: City Manager

Notices must be delivered by certified mail or by reputable overnight messenger (such as Federal Express).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Agreement on the respective dates set forth below, to be effective as of the Effective Date.

GRANTOR:

CITY OF BANNING
By:

Name:Doug Schulze
Title:City Manager
GRANTEE:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

COMPANY
By:

Name:

Title:
655

13030-0001\2986942v2.doc
EXHIBIT “A”

FORM OF EASEMENT
[Attached.]
656

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
2 INNOVATIONWAY, 2 ND FLOOR
POMONA, CA 91768
ATTN: TITLE & REAL ESTATE SERVICES
With a copy to:

CITY OF BANNING
99 E. RAMSEY STREET
BANNING, CA 92220
ATTN: CITY MANAGER
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

GRANT OF

EASEMENT
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ NONE (VALUE
AND CONSIDERATION LESS THAN $100.00)

DISTRICT

REDLANDS

SERVICE ORDER
801989664
SERIAL NO.
72814A

MAP SIZE
053-110,
052-100
SCE Doc No.:522085
V&LM File No.: ACQ203857835
_____________________ SCE Company
SIG. OF DECLARANT OR AGENT DETERMINING TAX FIRM NAME
FIM: 676-1800-2,
676-1806-2 & 672-1800-2
APN: 531-310-006
APPROVED:

VEGETATION &

LAND MANAGEMENT
BY
SF
DATE
10/15/2024

THE CITY OF BANNING, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as “Grantor”), hereby grants to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation, (hereinafter referred to as “Grantee”), without representation or warranty, express or implied, and subject to all matters of record and which could be discovered upon diligent inspection, an easement and right of way to do the following in compliance with all applicable laws and permits: construct, use, maintain, operate, alter, add to, repair, replace, reconstruct, inspect and remove at any time and from time to time overhead electrical supply systems and communication systems (hereinafter referred to as “systems”), consisting of poles, guy wires and anchors, crossarms, wires and other appurtenant fixtures and/or equipment necessary or useful, for distributing electrical energy and for transmitting intelligence, data and/or communications (e.g. through fiber optic cable), in, on, over, along and across that certain real property in the City of Banning, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

That portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, according to the Official Plat thereof, in the City of Banning, County of San Bernardino, State of California, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

Described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit “B”, both attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

Grantee accepts such property in its AS IS condition. Grantee shall not assign this easement or permit others to use the easement without the prior express written consent of Grantor. In connection with any construction, replacement, repair, Grantee shall diligently prosecute the work to completion.

Grantor hereby also grants to Grantee, the right of free access to said systems and every part thereof, at all times, for the purpose of exercising the rights herein granted, and the right to clear and to keep clear the above described real property, free from explosives, buildings, equipment, brush, combustible material and any and all other obstructions of any kind, and the right to trim or remove any tree or shrub adjacent to such real property on land owned by Grantor which could be reasonable determined to materially endanger said systems, or any part thereof, or materially interfere with the exercise of the rights herein granted.

Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold Grantee harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from or relating to or caused by this grant of easement, or any acts or omissions of Grantee or its contractors, employees or agents in, on or about the real property described herein or access areas, or from the existence, storage, release or transportation of any hazardous substances or materials. 657
Grant of Easement
City of Banning to
S. C. E. Co., a corp.

Serial No. 72814A
V&LM File No.: ACQ203857835
EXECUTED as of the date shown in the attached notary acknowledgment CITY OF BANNING, a municipal corporation
By:

Name:

Title:

Douglas Schulze
City Manager
658
Grant of Easement
City of Banning to
S. C. E. Co., a corp.

Serial No. 72814A
V&LM File No.: ACQ203857835
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )

County of )

On _______________________ before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature _______________________________
659
EXHIBIT "A"

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SERIAL: 72814A
APN: 531-310-006

THAT PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BANNING, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A STRIP OF LAND 30.00 FEET WIDE,

15.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE, BEING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL 8 IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN

BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, PER COURT CASE RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1967-16687, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STRIP DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

30.00 FOOT WIDE 33kV DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT:

COMMENCING AT A 2 INCH IRON PIPE WITH “STOCKHAM” CAST CAP, STAMPED "USIS" MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 81°39’16” WEST, 5415.19 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316243.61 NORTH AND 6366452.15 EAST; THENCE NORTH 03°33’26” EAST, 286.06 FEET TO A POINT HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316529.12 NORTH AND 6366469.90 EAST, THENCE NORTH 30°03’42” EAST, 238.38 FEET TO A POINT HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316735.44 NORTH AND 6366589.31 EAST, THENCE NORTH, 84°51’54” EAST, 247.59 FEET TO A POINT HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316757.60 NORTH AND 6366835.91 EAST, THENCE NORTH 86°25’30” EAST, 264.66 FEET TO A POINT HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316774.10 NORTH AND 6367100.05 EAST, THENCE NORTH 85°58’15” EAST, 234.44 FEET TO A POINT HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316790.57 NORTH AND 6367333.92 EAST, THENCE SOUTH 55°17’52” EAST, 245.20 FEET TO A POINT HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316650.98 NORTH AND 6367535.50 EAST, THENCE SOUTH 58°24’36” EAST, 293.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 50.00 FOOT

WIDE EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS, PER DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1984 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1984-179720 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF TERMINATION, HAVING A GRID COORDINATE OF 2316497.49 NORTH AND 6367785.08 EAST.

CONTAINING 54,280 SQUARE FEET OR 1.25 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

THE SIDELINES OF SAID STRIP SHALL BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO ORIGINATE IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 8 PER COURT CASE RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1967-16687, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND TERMINATE IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 50.00 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1 OF 2
660
661
662
N 03°33'26" E
286.06'
N 30°03'42" E
238.38'
N 84°51'54" E
247.59'
N 86°25'30" E
264.66'
N 85°58'15" E
234.44'
S 55°17'52" E
245.20'
S 58°24'36" E
293.00'
30' EASEMENT
54,280 S.F. / 1.25 ACRES
T.P.O.B.

N = 2316243.61
E = 6366452.15
P.O.T.

N = 2316497.49
E = 6367785.08
N 81°39'16" W 5415.19'

PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF SEC 4
T2S, R1E, SBM
PORTION OF PARCEL 8, PER COURT
CASE RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1967 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 1967-16687, OFFICIAL

RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
APN: 531-310-006

LANDS OF GRANTOR
VARIES
TO P.O.C. (SEE SHEET 1) 15' 15' 30'
N = 2316529.12
E = 6366469.90
N = 2316735.44
E = 6366589.31
N = 2316757.60
E = 6366835.91
N = 2316774.10
E = 6367100.05
N = 2316790.57
E = 6367333.92
N = 2316650.98
E = 6367535.50
EXHIBIT "B"

PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SERIAL: 72814A
APN: 531-310-006
PORTION OF PARCEL 8, PER COURT CASE RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1967-16687,

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHEET 2 OF 2
LEGEND:

EASEMENT
54,280 S.F. / 1.25 ACRES

FOUND MONUMENT
S.F. SQUARE FEET
P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
P.O.T. POINT OF TERMINATION
T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING

EXISTING EASEMENT

LANDS OF GRANTOR

SECTION LINE

TIE LINE
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
Proposed SCE Easement Location
690
30' EASEMENT
54,280 S.F. /

1.25 ACRES
PORTION OF PARCEL 8, PER COURT
CASE RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1967 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 1967-16687, OFFICIAL

RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
APN: 531-310-006

LANDS OF GRANTOR
VARIES 15' 15' 30'

PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF SEC 4
T2S, R1E, SBM
SHEET 1 OF 1

EXHIBIT MAP
SERIAL: 72814A
APN: 531-310-006
PORTION OF PARCEL 8, PER COURT CASE RECORDED
FEBRUARY 28, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1967-16687,

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SEC 4,
T2S, R1E, SBM

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
SITE -

LANDS OF

GRANTOR
3 9 10
4 9
4 8
5 5 4 4 3
LEGEND:

EASEMENT
54,280 S.F. / 1.25 ACRES
S.F. SQUARE FEET

EXISTING EASEMENT

LANDS OF GRANTOR

SECTION LINE
691

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: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-181, Amending the Classification and Compensation Plan
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-181.

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:

Administrative Services-Finance
Un-fund and Reclassify the Budget and Financial Analyst (Job Code 2009) Range T79 to a Sr.

Accountant (Job Code 2051) Range G68. This will add a technical position within the Finance Department. The reclassification will create a cost savings within the general fund.

Administrative Services-Purchasing
Reclassify the Purchasing Manager (Job Code 2047) Range T85 to a Chief Procurement Officer (Job Code 2058) Range T85. The Municipal Code 3.24 in addition to the B-30 Procurement Policy makes mention to a the "Purchasing Officer" throughout the Code and Policy. Staff is requesting Council to update the title to match what is documented.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Position/Range Proposed Salary Range Current Salary Range Proposed Based Wage
Difference
Budget and Financial
Analyst/T79
$ 0.00 $ 112,125 $ 112,125.00
Sr. Accountant/G68 $ 81,711.00 $ 0.00 $ -87,711.00
692
Purchasing
Manager/T85
$ 0.00 $ 136,747.00 $ 136,747.00
Chief Procurement
Officer/T85
$ 136,747.00 $ 0.00 $ -136,747.00
Total Annual Fiscal
Impact
$ 24,414 Savings
ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt Resolution 2024-181 and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-181, Class and Comp.docx

2. Exhibit A - Senior Accountant_2024.pdf

3. Exhibit B - Chief Procurement Officer_2024.pdf
693
Resolution 2024-181

RESOLUTION 2024-181

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

AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BANNING 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 Budget and Financial Analyst to a Sr.

Accountant will provide a cost savings and add a technical position to the Finance Department; and
WHEREAS, the proposed reclassification of the Purchasing Manager to a Chief Procurement Officer per mention throughout the Municipal Code and B-30 Policy; 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 Budget and Financial Analyst (unfund) to Sr. Accountant (G68). (2) reclassification of the Purchasing Manager (T85) to the Chief Procurement Officer (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 12th day of November 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
694
Resolution 2024-181

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
695
Resolution 2024-181

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-181, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of November 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
696
Resolution 2024-181

Exhibit A
Sr. Accountant Job Description
697
Resolution 2024-181

Exhibit B
Chief Procurement Officer Job Description
698

JOB DESCRIPTION
TITLE: Senior Accountant JOB CODE: 2051
DEPARTMENT: Finance Department EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/12/2024 REPORTS TO: Deputy Finance Director FLSA STATUS: Non-Exempt SUPERVISES: n/a UNION STATUS: Represented
SALARY RANGE: G68 ($70,250.69-$95,040.58)

JOB PURPOSE/SUMMARY
Under the general direction of the Deputy Finance Director, performs a full range of complex, professional accounting and financial analysis in the preparation and maintenance of the City's financial records, reports and systems; provides a basis for sound operational and financial planning through financial review, analysis, monitoring, reconciliation and maintenance of assigned financial accounts, programs and activities; and performs related duties as assigned.

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
699

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.
 Performs complex and technical accounting work in the maintenance and analysis of records of revenues, expenditures and special program/project funds; prepares analyses, schedules, summaries, journal entries and reconciliations to produce accurate periodic financial reports in accordance with GAAP.
 Performs warrant review activities; ensures proper accounting for purchase requisitions, invoices, claims, fixed assets and sales tax accruals.
 Performs grant financial administration, monitoring, and reporting; coordinates with other department program managers and the grant manager to gather grant information, update grant records, research information, and provide financial data to aid program managers in managing their grants. Prepares the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for annual Single Audit.
 Serves as liaison with accounting and fiscal personnel from other departments by responding to questions and issues; monitors department’s budgets and expenditures.  Participates in the development of the City’s annual comprehensive budget; ensures that the development of the City’s annual budget adheres to established accounting procedures.  Reconciles a variety of financial ledgers and records; participate in the compilation and preparation of financial statements, general and subsidiary ledgers and supporting schedules; researches and resolves discrepancies.
 Prepares a variety of financial statistical reports related to various City accounts, fixed assets and spending practices; conducts month and year end closing duties.  Reviews and reconciles monthly bank statements and cash receipts to the general ledger.

Maintains a variety of City accounts including subsidiary accounts, investment accounts and grant accounts; prepare cash transfers and loans between funds and accounts; ensures all activities are in compliance with accounting principles and standards  Maintains a variety of City accounts including subsidiary accounts, investment accounts and grant accounts; prepare cash transfers and loans between funds and accounts; ensures all activities are in compliance with accounting principles and standards.  Participates in the development of the City’s biennial comprehensive budget; ensures that the development of the City’s budget adheres to established accounting procedures. Performs duties in monitoring the City budget; ensures proper authorization and journaled transactions; tracks expenditures and resolves discrepancies; provides assistance to City departments in budget preparation
 Participate in the inventory of the City’s electric, water, wastewater, and fleet divisions and operations.
 Oversee the submission of financial and accounting reports required by outside agencies; answer related questions as needed.
 Coordinates and assists with annual and special audits; prepares audit schedules; analyzes, reconciles and prepares revenue and expenditure accounts and prepares year-end adjusting entries, accruals and closing entries. May act as a lead accountant in the audit of City financial records, statements and reports.
 Provides guidance to other accounting support staff in performing accounting entries; works directly with staff from other departments to resolve technical accounting issues and problems.  Monitor program compliance with laws, rules and regulations governing municipal accounting and public finance services.
 Maintain awareness of new development in the fields of municipal accounting and public finance; incorporate new development as appropriate into programs.  Performs other duties as assigned or required.
700
KNOWLEDGE OF:
 Generally accepted accounting principles
 Theory, principles and practices of municipal finance, budgeting, auditing, and accounting, including audit principles and practices
 Principles and practices of public finance and financial reporting.  Recent development, current literature and information related to municipal accounting and public finance.
 Modern office equipment including computers and supporting work processing and spreadsheet applications.
 Pertinent Federal, State and local laws, codes and ordinances.  Various types of grants and related compliance requirements.  Laws regulating public finance, fiscal operations, and governmental financial reporting at the federal, state, and/or local level.
 City policies and procedures for cash control, accounts payable processing, and payroll reporting.  Accounting Standards and requirements applicable to City operations and funding sources.  The uses of spreadsheets and other standard financial and business software.  Standard office procedures and practices.
 Safe driving principles and practices
Ability to:
 Perform professional level accounting duties.
 Coordinate municipal accounting and public finance programs.  Analyze, post, balance and reconcile financial data ledgers and accounts.  Work independently and/or with a team.
 Analyze data and draw logical conclusions
 Interpret and apply related laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures.  Generate journal entries and inter-departmental transfers.  Review and interpret financial reports and transactions.  Prepare a variety of financial reports.
 Maintain a detailed budget for assigned divisions and programs.  Interpret and explain City policies and procedures.
 Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.  Operate office equipment including computers and supporting word processing and spreadsheet applications.
 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.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with major course-work in accounting, finance, business administration or a related field. Three years of professional level accounting experience. Experience in governmental accounting is highly desirable.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: May be required to work outside the traditional work schedule.

WORKING CONDITIONS: May require maintaining physical condition necessary for sitting; occasional walking and standing. May be required to lift and/or carry materials, equipment and/or items weighing up to 15 pounds.

PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING CONDITIONS
While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to walk, sit, talk, and hear. The employee is frequently required to use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls and reach with hands and arms. The employee is frequently required to climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl.
701
The employee must regularly lift and/or move up to one hundred (100) pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, and the ability to adjust focus 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.

Previous position Accountant II
702

JOB DESCRIPTION
TITLE: Chief Procurement Officer JOB CODE: 2058
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services Department FLSA STATUS: Exempt REPORTS TO: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR UNION STATUS: Represented SUPERVISES: PURCHASING STAFF EFFECTIVE DATE: 03/08/2005 SALARY RANGE: T85 ($109,012.19-$147,480.13) REVISED DATE: 11/12/2025

JOB PURPOSE/SUMMARY
Under general direction of the Administrative Services Director, responsible for the leadership, strategic planning, and management, supervises, plans, and coordinates the activities and operations of the City’s centralized Purchasing functions. This position provides lead supervision to professional, technical, and/or clerical staff.

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.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
This is a single position class that functions as a division head and is accountable for managing and supervising the day-to-day operations and activities of procurement for the City. The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as

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 are 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
703
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.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES:
▪ Supervise the City’s centralized purchasing activities. Plan, coordinate, prioritize, monitor and participate in the purchasing of commonly used materials, supplies, equipment and services by the City.
▪ Participate in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the Purchasing Division; identify resource needs, recommend and implement policies, procedures, rules, regulations and ordinances. Assist in the development of City policies and procedures involving the acquisition of supplies or services.
▪ Administer applicable contracts; review and approve purchase requests for completeness, accuracy and compliance with purchasing and budgetary policies and procedures, and issue purchase orders accordingly.
▪ Direct, coordinate and review the work plan for the Purchasing Division; meet with staff to identify and resolve problems; assign work activities and projects; monitor workflow; review and evaluate work products, methods and procedures.
▪ Supervise and train division personnel; assume responsibility for motivating and evaluating assigned personnel and initiating disciplinary procedures as appropriate. ▪ Maintain appropriate work records and documents which may include purchase orders, purchase reports, proposals and other documentation; prepare statistical and/or analytical reports on operations as necessary.
▪ Research, analyze and develop diversified and reliable sources of supplies. Establish and maintain contracts and negotiate with vendors; keep informed of new products; and evaluate vendor performance.
▪ Responsible for the development of value-added business processes, including enabling an efficient procure to pay process flow, optimizing cost savings on purchases, managing procurement card programs, and facilitating the business contract program ▪ Develop and implement formal and informal bidding policies; develop bid documents and competitive solicitations; conduct public bid openings; analyze bids against specifications and prepare bid analysis; compose and prepare staff reports; recommend award of contracts and/or purchase orders in accordance with all laws, City ordinances, and policies; develop other documents as necessary. ▪ Stay abreast of current and long-range trends in the field of purchasing and supply; attend seminar and professional meetings as necessary.
▪ Develop and implement insurance compliance and processes for Procurement. ▪ Develop and administer the budget for the Purchasing Division; monitor and approve expenditures; recommend adjustments as necessary.
▪ Coordinate purchasing services with other City departments, divisions, and outside agencies. Serve as a technical resource to other departments; assist departments with budget estimates for the purchase of materials and equipment. Assume responsibility as liaison between vendors and City departments relative to procurement activities.
▪ Develop, administer and maintain travel policies and procedures. Approve travel authorizations within the policy parameters.
▪ Conduct staff training for procurement, insurance, Procurement card (P-Card), travel, surplus, and other training as necessary.
▪
KNOWLEDGE OF:
▪ City, County, State and Federal statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, administrative policies and other operational guidelines and directives for purchasing for a municipality. ▪ Modern and complex principles and practices of governmental purchasing, and methods and techniques of statistics.
▪ Methods and techniques for report preparation, writing, and record keeping. ▪ Assisting City staff with procurement needs by providing professional and technical guidance on obtaining materials and services; ensure that procurement activities meet legal and professional 704
standards by enforcing pertinent codes, policies and regulations and professional ethics regarding purchasing operations.
▪ Reviewing and processing purchase orders, verifying proper account numbers/funds for ordered items; sign and approve purchase orders as authorized; and coordinate and monitor open/blanket purchase orders.
▪ Principles of supervision, training, and performance evaluation. ▪ Principles of contract negotiation and administration. ▪ Safe driving principles and practices.
▪ Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment.

ABILITY TO:
▪ Read, understand, interpret, and apply relevant City, County, State and Federal statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, administrative orders, policies and procedures and other operational guidelines and directives.
▪ Develop specifications, contracts, bonding requirements, purchase orders and other documents as necessary
▪ Manage and coordinate the work of technical and administrative support personnel. ▪ Select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff.
▪ Effectively handle a variety of assignment simultaneously. ▪ Analyze and evaluate data and prepare comprehensive reports and studies. ▪ Communicate clearly and concisely.
▪ Act as liaison to advise and/or resolve differences between departments and outside agencies. ▪ Initiate, plan and complete work assignments with a minimum of direction and control. ▪ Interact with personnel at all organizational levels and on occasion function in stressful situations requiring persuasion and negotiation.
▪ Plan, organize, and coordinate the City’s purchasing operations. ▪ Prepare oral presentations and written reports.
▪ Work independently.
▪ Establish and maintain effective working relationships.

SKILL TO:
▪ Operate a computer and applicable software.
▪ Effectively operate a motor vehicle on city streets.
▪ Monitor market conditions, current prices, trade names, and brands related to purchasing for a municipality.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
• A Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration, Marketing, Accounting or a related field from a regionally accredited college or university.
• Three (3) years of professional purchasing experience including one (1) year in a supervisory capacity.
• A valid California Class C Driver License (If currently in possession of a valid driver’s license from another state, a valid California Class C Driver License must be obtained within 30 days of employment).

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS:
• Possession of a Certified Professional Purchasing Manager (CPPM) certification or a Certified Purchasing Professional (CPP) certification.
• Professional work experience in purchasing within a municipality or related public agency.

WORKING ENVIRONMENT:

Indoor office environment with moderate noise level and subject to constant interruptions. 705
PHYSICAL DEMANDS:

This position requires prolonged sitting, standing, walking, reaching, twisting, and turning, kneeling, bending, squatting, and stooping in the performance of daily activities. The position also requires grasping, repetitive hand movement, and fine coordination in preparing documents and reports and data using a computer keyboard. Additionally, the position requires near vision in reading correspondence, statistical data and using a computer, and acute hearing is required when providing phone service and communicating in person.

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.

Previous Position – Purchasing Manager
706

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Laurie Sampson, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-182, Approving Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) for FY 2025-2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-182.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Banning, through the Riverside County Housing and Workforce Solutions, has submitted various projects annually for funding under the CDBG program. Notifications of the application period in English and Spanish were published on the City’s website and press releases were transmitted to the Record Gazette, Facebook, and Instagram. Applications were due to the city for consideration on or before October 31, 2024, at 4:00 pm.

As part of the CDBG guidelines, the proposed projects/activities must meet the following criteria:

1. The project or activity must primarily benefit the low and moderate-income community.

2. The project or activity must aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight areas.

3. The project or activity must be designed to meet the Community’s development needs and have a particular urgency.

JUSTIFICATION:

In response to the 2025/2026 grant cycle, five applications for service-related projects were submitted by non-profit organizations, one facility improvement project application from the City. As set forth in the guidelines for utilization of the CDBG funding, the City Council may designate up to 15% of the City’s allocation to service oriented non-profit agencies for public services projects but is not required. The FY 2025/2026 estimated allocation is $159,000 of which $23,850.00 can be awarded to non-profit servicerelated organizations.

The applications are summarized below.

Applications Received Requested Funding Ad-Hoc Recommended Community Projects
Sunrise Life Development $35,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Habitat for Humanity $50,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Faith in Action $47,500.00 $ 5,000.00
Voices for Children $10,000,00 $ 5,000.00
Boys and Girls Club $35,000.00 $ 3,850.00
City of Banning Projects
Senior Center Restrooms $149,356.00 $ 135,150.00
707
Total $326,856.00 $159,000
On September 24, 2024, the City Council appointed an Ad-hoc Committee comprised of two Council members, Sheri Flynn and David Happe and the Economic Development Manager, Marisol Lopez, to review and recommend approval of Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Funding Cycle 2025/2026.

The committee met on November 6, 2024, Council Member Happe absent, and recommended the City’s CDBG entitlement be allocated to Sunrise Life Development in the amount of $5,000; Habitat for Humanity in the amount of $5,000; Faith in Action in the amount of $5,000; Voices for Children int eh amount of $5,000; Boys and Girls Club in the amount of $3,850; and the City of Banning Senior Center Restroom Improvements in the amount of $135,150.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated funding under the CDBG Fiscal Year 2025/2026 program is approximately $159,000.

Upon approval of the City Council, the City approved projects will be submitted to the HWS for review and consideration. It is anticipated that final funding approval will be provided to the City by October of 2025.

ALTERNATIVES:

If the City Council chooses not to approve any CDBG applications the City will forfeit approximately $159,000 in funding. It may also affect future CDBG funds for the City.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-182, CDBG for FY25-26.docx

2. CDBG 2025-2026 Proof of Publication English.pdf

3. CDBG 2025-2026 Proof of Publication Spanish.pdf

4. CDBG 2025-2026 Facebook.pdf

5. CDBG 2025-2026 Instagram.pdf
708
Resolution 2024-182

RESOLUTION 2024-182

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

APPROVING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
WHEREAS, THE City of Banning has submitted applications for projects/activities under the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) program tot eh County of Riverside Department of Housing and Workforce Solutions annually; and WHEREAS, during the month of October, notifications of application availability were provided to non-profit organizations, City Departments, and the general public through various media, including legal notice, City website, and the City’s social media outlets; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2024, at its regular meeting, the City Council appointed an Ad-Hoc Committee to review applications received. The applications were provided to the committee for review on November 1, 2024, and recommendation as shown as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the CDBG Ad-hoc Committee reviewed applications and recommended the following projects be funded:

WHEREAS, the projects submitted herein meet the CDBG program guidelines and/or requirements; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that the project be approved by the City Council through resolution in order for the City and its residents to obtain and utilize the federally funded CDBG grant funds.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves Resolution 2024-182, approving the projects submitted for funding under the Community Development Block Grant programs for Fiscal Year 2025-2026; and
SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the Administrative Services Director or his designee to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations and transfers related to this resolution; and
SECTION 3. The City Manager is authorized to submit projects for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Community Development Block Grant program to County of Riverside Housing and Workforce Solutions for approval by their Board
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. 709
Resolution 2024-182

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
710
Resolution 2024-182

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-182, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of November 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
711
Resolution 2024-182

EXHIBIT A
Description of Exhibit A
2025/2026 CDBG Applications Submitted
Applications Received Requested
Funding
Ad-Hoc
Recommended
Community Projects
Sunrise Life Development $35,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Habitat for Humanity $50,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Faith in Action $47,500.00 $ 5,000.00
Voices for Children $10,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Boys and Girls Club $35,000.00 $ 3,850.00
City of Banning Projects
Senior Center Restroom
Improvements $149,356.00 $135,150.00
Total $326,856.00 $ 159,000.00
712
713
714
715
716

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: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Update on Cost Recovery Services for First Responder (EMS/Fire) Medical Billing Fees Collected by Wittman Enterprises LLC for the City of Banning
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

On March 24, 2020, the City Council directed staff to return with a resolution to implement an Emergency Medical Services Billing Program Fee and Related Write Off Policy modeled after the Cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. The emergency medical services billing program fee is paid by insurance. Insurance will be billed directly whenever possible. If insurance information isn’t available, the statement will clearly indicate that the bill should be submitted to insurance for payment. No collection activities are proposed in the event a bill is not paid.

On May 26, 2020 City Council authorized the Agreement with Wittman Enterprises LLC to begin the Emergency Medical Services Billing Program which allows Wittman Enterprises LLC to bill medical insurance companies (at no cost to the public) for medical Fire/EMS response fees. This program is intended to recover costs and generate revenue for the City.

Staff will continue to evaluate, on an annual basis, the services provided to the City by Wittman Enterprises LLC to confirm that it is appropriate to continue receiving said services.

JUSTIFICATION:

Staff is reporting the fees and revenues received from inception (second quarter of FY2021) through the first quarter of FY2025. Finance staff meets quarterly with Wittman staff for a status update and to address any concerns that may need clarification. The City would like to emphasize that as a resident of the City, you are protected from out-of-pocket costs related to emergency medical services. It is important to understand as a resident, you will not be held financially responsible for any balances for these services beyond what is paid by the insurance. However, the City will bill (for the resident to contact their insurance directly, if the insurance is not previously provided) to recover costs related to the medical emergency. Recovered funds support the City’s emergency responses to critical life and health situations within the community.
717
FISCAL IMPACT:

Please see Attachment 1 for the administrative costs (cost to administer and revenues associated with the program).

ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1-Costs versus Revenue Wittman Enterprises LLC.pdf 718
City of Banning Wittman Cost Recovery
Fiscal Year 2021 1st Quarter FY2021 2nd Quarter
FY2021
3rd Quarter
FY2021
Fourth Quarter
FY2021
Total FY 2021
Medical Response Payments - 2,000.00 7,720.00 7,590.00 17,310.00 Wittman Costs - 15,900.00 15,870.00 17,145.00 48,915.00 Net Amount - (13,900.00) (8,150.00) (9,555.00) (31,605.00) Fiscal Year 2022 1st Quarter FY2022 2nd Quarter
FY2022
3rd Quarter
FY2022
Fourth Quarter
FY2022
Total FY 2022
Medical Response Payments 17,567.07 20,572.98 16,205.15 49,221.40 103,566.60 Wittman Costs 14,385.00 13,920.00 14,700.00 15,300.00 58,305.00 Net Amount 3,182.07 6,652.98 1,505.15 33,921.40 45,261.60 Fiscal Year 2023 1st Quarter FY2023 2nd Quarter
FY2023
3rd Quarter
FY2023
Fourth Quarter
FY2023
Total FY 2023
Medical Response Payments 41,453.64 28,147.72 23,859.35 26,822.51 120,283.22 Wittman Costs 14,701.00 17,110.50 14,045.25 13,969.00 59,825.75 Net Amount 26,752.64 11,037.22 9,814.10 12,853.51 60,457.47 Fiscal Year 2024 1st Quarter FY2024 2nd Quarter
FY2024
3rd Quarter
FY2024
Fourth Quarter
FY2024
Total FY 2024
Medical Response Payments 26,821.88 28,777.27 22,074.05 25,638.00 103,311.20 Wittman Costs 14,833.50 10,385.00 14,045.25 9,749.50 49,013.25 Net Amount 11,988.38 18,392.27 8,028.80 15,888.50 54,297.95 Fiscal Year 2025 1st Quarter FY2025 2nd Quarter
FY2025
3rd Quarter
FY2025
Fourth Quarter
FY2025
Total FY 2025
Medical Response Payments 16,904.48 - - - -
Wittman Costs 9,103.50 - - - -
Net Amount 7,800.98 - - - -
Total from Inception of Program
Medical Response Payments 102,747.07 79,497.97 69,858.55 109,271.91 344,471.02 Wittman Costs 53,023.00 57,315.50 58,660.50 56,163.50 216,059.00 Net Amount 49,724.07 22,182.47 11,198.05 53,108.41 128,412.02 719

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Kristine Gutierrez, Community Development Operations Manager David Newell, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Receive and File Annual Fire Inspection Report of Certain Occupancies for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and File.

BACKGROUND:

In 2018, California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 13146.4 was added by Senate Bill 1205 (SB1205) and became effective January 1, 2019. Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments, that provide fire protection services, to report annually to their administering authority on their compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3. Theses sections cover the required annual inspections of every building used as a public or private school (used by more than 6 persons for educational purposes through the 12th grade), hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house (3 units or more) and certain residential care facilities for compliance with building standards.

During the time period of July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Fire Department identified nine Group E and sixty-five Group R-1, R-2, R2.1 occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities in the City of Banning and completed 100% of the annual inspections at the identified occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. The Fire Department will continue to assess, with the assistance of City Staff, the existing building stock and new development within the City in an effort to ensure that all applicable Group E and R buildings, structures and/or facilities receive an annual inspection in accordance with SB1205.

JUSTIFICATION:

Annual activity report provided for informational purposes.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None. Fees are collected to conduct fire inspections in accordance with HSC Section 13146.3(b).

ALTERNATIVES:

Direct staff to prepare additional information on the inspection reporting.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:
720
No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. FY 23-24 SB 1205 Inspections Streadsheet Totals.docx

2. SB 1205 Text.pdf

3. 131464 Annual inspection reports receipt of report administering authority.pdf

4. 131462 Inspection of structures other than dwellings subject to subdivision (b) .pdf

5. 131463 Annual inspection of school buildings.pdf
721
FY 2023/2024 HSC 13146.4 ANNUAL INSPECTION LIST

CITY OF BANNING
R‐1 OCCUPANCIES
NAME HOUSE_NO DIR STREET SUFFIX CITY ZIP
COUNTRY INN 932 E RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
HP. HOSPITALITY, LLC DBA DAYS INN 2320 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 3020 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
MARGARITA MOTEL 1551 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
QUALITY INN 1690 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220

HAMPTON INN AND SUITES
(SAGEMONT-BANNING, LLC)
6071 JOSHUA PALMER WAY BANNING 92220
STAGECOACH MOTOR INN 1363 E RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
SUNSET MOTEL 2475 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
THE BANNING MANOR 3911 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
BHO, DBA THE LAKES 5801 SUN LAKES BLVD BANNING 92220
TRAVELODGE 1700 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
R‐2 OCCUPANCIES
NAME HOUSE_NO DIR STREET SUFFIX CITY ZIP
MULTIPLEX 86 N 3RD ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 92 N 22ND ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 98 N 22ND ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 125 N PHILLIPS AVE BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 165 N 16TH ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 185 W WESTWARD AVE BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 216 W GEORGE ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 220 N HARGRAVE ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 225 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 231 E NICOLET ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 233 W NICOLET ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 238 W HAYS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 250 N HARGRAVE ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 258 N ALESSANDRO RD BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 263 N EVANS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 280 N HARGRAVE ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 287 W WESTWARD AVE BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 333 N MURRAY ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 376 N 4TH ST BANNING 92220
WINSCAPE VILLAGE 380 W BARBOUR ST BANNING 92220
PEPPERTREE APARTMENTS 456 E NICOLET ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 462 N ALESSANDRO ST BANNING 92220
PLAZA VILAS 477 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 515 N 2ND ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 536 N 5TH ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 544 N 6TH ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 546 N 5TH ST BANNING 92220
SUMMIT RIDGE APARTMENTS 555 N HATHAWAY ST BANNING 92220 MULTIPLEX 584 E HOFFER ST BANNING 92220
BONITA APARTMENT 675 W WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 726 W NICOLET ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 765 E WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 955 W HAYS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 962 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
MUTIPLEX 975 E WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 1329 W WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
VISTA SERENA 1372 VISTA SERENA AVE BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 1420 E WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 1424 E WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
722
MULTIPLEX 1646 W WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 1837 W HAYS ST BANNING 92220
TOWNE APARTMENTS 2692 W WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 3131 W GEORGE ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 3171 W GEORGE ST BANNING 92220
MULITPLEX 3171 W WILLIAMS ST BANNING 92220
LITTLE EUROPE 3820 W JACINTO VIEW RD BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 3988 W RAMSEY ST BANNING 92220
WILSON GARDEN APARTMENTS 5059 W WILSON ST BANNING 92220 MULTIPLEX 5183 W WILSON ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 5223 W WILSON ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 5231 W WILSON ST BANNING 92220
MULTIPLEX 267, 273 N ALESSANDRO RD BANNING 92220
R2.1 OCCUPANCIES

E OCCUPANCIES
NAME HOUSE_NO DIR STREET SUFFIX CITY ZIP
THE LAKES 5801 SUNALKES BLVD BANNING 92220
SUNDANCE POST ACUTE 5800 W WILSON ST BANNING 92220
NAME HOUSE_NO DIR STREET SUFFIX CITY ZIP
CALVARY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL 135 MOUNTAIN AVE BANNING 92220 FLORIDA STREET DISCOVERY CENTER 671 N FLORIDA ST BANNING 92220 BANNING HIGH SCHOOL 100 W WESTWARD AVE BANNING 92220
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 295 N SAN GORGONIO DR BANNING 92220
HEMMERLING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1928 W NICOLET ST BANNING 92220 HOFFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1115 E HOFFER ST BANNING 92220 SUSAN B. COOMBS 1151 W WILSON ST BANNING 92220
NICOLET MIDDLE SCHOOL 101 E NICOLET ST BANNING 92220
YOUNG SCHOLAR EDUCATION CENTER 4029 W GEORGE ST BANNING 92220 723
Senate Bill No. 1205
CHAPTER 854
An act to add Section 13146.4 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to fire protection.
[Approved by Governor September 27, 2018. Filed with
Secretary of State September 27, 2018.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1205, Hill. Fire protection services: inspections: compliance reporting.

Existing law requires the chief of any city or county fire department or district providing fire protection services and his or her authorized representatives to inspect every building used as a public or private school within his or her jurisdiction, for the purpose of enforcing specified building standards, not less than once each year, as provided. Existing law requires every city or county fire department or district providing fire protection services that is required to enforce specified building standards to annually inspect certain structures, including hotels, motels, lodging houses, and apartment houses, for compliance with building standards, as provided.

This bill would require every city or county fire department, city and county fire department, or district required to perform the above-described inspections to report annually to its administering authority, as defined, on the department’s or district’s compliance with the above-described inspection requirements, as provided. The bill would require the administering authority to acknowledge receipt of the report in a resolution or a similar formal document. To the extent this bill would expand the responsibility of a local agency, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 13146.4 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
13146.4. (a)  Every city or county fire department, city and county fire department, or district required to perform an annual inspection pursuant 93 724
to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 shall report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3. (b)  The report made pursuant to subdivision (a) shall occur when the administering authority discusses its annual budget, or at another time determined by the administering authority.
(c)  The administering authority shall acknowledge receipt of the report made pursuant to subdivision (a) in a resolution or a similar formal document.
(d)  For purposes of this section, “administering authority” means a city council, county board of supervisors, or district board, as the case may be.

SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

O
93 Ch. 854 — 2 —
725
§ 13146.4. Annual inspection reports; receipt of report;..., CA HLTH & S § 13146.4 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West's Annotated California Codes
Health and Safety Code (Refs & Annos)
Division 12. Fires and Fire Protection (Refs & Annos)
Part 2. Fire Protection
Chapter 1. State Fire Marshal
Article 2. The State Board of Fire Services (Refs & Annos) West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 13146.4
§ 13146.4. Annual inspection reports; receipt of report; administering authority Effective: January 1, 2019
Currentness
(a) Every city or county fire department, city and county fire department, or district required to perform an annual inspection pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 shall report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.
(b) The report made pursuant to subdivision (a) shall occur when the administering authority discusses its annual budget, or at another time determined by the administering authority. (c) The administering authority shall acknowledge receipt of the report made pursuant to subdivision (a) in a resolution or a similar formal document.
(d) For purposes of this section, “administering authority” means a city council, county board of supervisors, or district board, as the case may be.

Credits
(Added by Stats.2018, c. 854 (S.B.1205), § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019.) West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 13146.4, CA HLTH & S § 13146.4 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 1002 of 2024 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 726
§ 13146.2. Inspection of structures, other than dwellings,..., CA HLTH & S § 13146.2 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West's Annotated California Codes
Health and Safety Code (Refs & Annos)
Division 12. Fires and Fire Protection (Refs & Annos)
Part 2. Fire Protection
Chapter 1. State Fire Marshal
Article 2. The State Board of Fire Services (Refs & Annos) West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 13146.2
§ 13146.2. Inspection of structures, other than dwellings, subject to subdivision (b) of § 17921; fee Effective: June 27, 2019
Currentness
(a) Every city, county, or city and county fire department or district providing fire protection services required by Sections 13145 and 13146 to enforce building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal shall, annually, inspect all structures subject to subdivision (b) of Section 17921, except dwellings, for compliance with building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal. (b) A city, county, or city and county fire department or district providing fire protection services that inspects a structure pursuant to subdivision (a) may charge and collect a fee for the inspection from the owner of the structure in an amount, as determined by the city, county, or city and county fire department or district providing fire protection services, sufficient to pay the costs of that inspection. (c) A city, county, or city and county fire department or district providing fire protection services that provides related fire and life safety activities for structures subject to subdivision (b) of Section 17921, such as plan review, construction consulting, fire watch, and investigation, may charge and collect a fee from the owner of the structure in an amount, as determined by the city, county, city and county, or district, sufficient to pay the costs of those related fire and life safety activities.
(d) The State Fire Marshal, or the State Fire Marshal's authorized representative, who inspects a structure subject to subdivision (b) of Section 17921, except dwellings, for compliance with building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal, may charge and collect a fee for the inspection from the owner of the structure. The State Fire Marshal may also charge and collect a fee from the owner of the structure for related fire and life safety activities, such as plan review, construction consulting, fire watch, and investigation. Any fee collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be in an amount, as determined by the State Fire Marshal, sufficient to pay the costs of that inspection or those related fire and life safety activities.

Credits
(Added by Stats.1984, c. 268, § 27.57, eff. June 30, 1984. Amended by Stats.2008, c. 760 (A.B.1338), § 6, eff.

Sept. 30, 2008; Stats.2019, c. 31 (S.B.85), § 9, eff. June 27, 2019.) West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 13146.2, CA HLTH & S § 13146.2 727
§ 13146.2. Inspection of structures, other than dwellings,..., CA HLTH & S § 13146.2 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 1002 of 2024 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 728
§ 13146.3. Annual inspection of school buildings, CA HLTH & S § 13146.3 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West's Annotated California Codes
Health and Safety Code (Refs & Annos)
Division 12. Fires and Fire Protection (Refs & Annos)
Part 2. Fire Protection
Chapter 1. State Fire Marshal
Article 2. The State Board of Fire Services (Refs & Annos) West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 13146.3
§ 13146.3. Annual inspection of school buildings
Effective: June 27, 2019
Currentness
(a) A city, county, or city and county fire department or district providing fire protection services shall inspect every building used as a public or private school within its jurisdiction, for the purpose of enforcing regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 13143, not less than once each year. The State Fire Marshal and the State Fire Marshal's authorized representatives shall make these inspections not less than once each year in areas outside of corporate cities and districts providing fire protection services. (b) A city, county, or city and county fire department or district that, or the State Fire Marshal or the State Fire Marshal's authorized representative who, inspects a structure pursuant to subdivision (a) may charge and collect a fee for the inspection in an amount sufficient to pay the costs of that inspection.

Credits
(Added by Stats.1959, c. 1891, p. 4458, § 3. Amended by Stats.1965, c. 526, p. 1845, § 3; Stats.1980, c. 118, p. 280, § 8; Stats.1996, c. 332 (A.B.3080), § 30; Stats.2019, c. 31 (S.B.85), § 10, eff. June 27, 2019.) West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 13146.3, CA HLTH & S § 13146.3 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 1002 of 2024 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 729

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Holly Stuart, Public Works Program Manager Arturo Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Community Cleanup and Compost Giveaway Event Update RECOMMENDATION:

This is informational only; receive and file report.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Banning has partnered with Waste Management as part of the solid waste franchise agreement to provide three free bulky item collection events for residential accounts per calendar year.

The City held the third of the three bulky item collection events for this year on Saturday, October 19, 2024, at Dysart Park offering residents the opportunity to dispose of unwanted items including, but not limited to, appliances, mattresses, green waste, e-waste and so forth. This event also offers residents paper shredding and the collection of household batteries.

This latest event welcomed 493 vehicles. An accumulation of 44.49 tons of municipal solid waste, 3.5 tons of green waste, 14.77 tons of white goods/metal, 3.3 tons of paper shredding, 3.284 tons of Ewaste, and 0.99 tons of mattresses were collected over the duration of 5 hours. Waste Management collected a grand total of 70.33 tons of waste of which 25.84 tons were successfully diverted from the landfill. Furthermore, five barrels of household batteries were collected during the event.

According to Waste Management's calculations, these recycling efforts resulted in the following benefits:

Saved 146,532 kWh of electricity. Enough electricity to power 11 households for one year.

Reduced GHG emissions by 5 metric tons. Equivalent to taking 3 passenger cars off the road for one year.

Kept 6,568 Ibs of solid Waste out of the landfill. The amount of trash generated by 4 households in one year.

Kept 1,610 Ibs of hazardous materials out of the environment.

In addition to the collection of bulky waste at Dysart Park, the City included a compost station, giving away free compost to the community. Fifty-two (52) residents obtained compost the day of the event.

Any unused compost that was not given away will be disbursed and utilized on City properties throughout the community. Incorporating the free compost giveaway supports the City’s compliance goals in achieving targets identified by the State and SB 1383 requirements to purchase and utilize organic waste materials. In all, Waste Management provided 18 tons of compost for the giveaway.

JUSTIFICATION:

The City’s Bulky Item Collection and Compost Giveaway events continue to be a success and provide a great service to our community. The events aid in keeping the community clean through reducing the 730
amount of waste that may otherwise be illegally dumped throughout the City and its rights-of-ways.

Events for calendar year 2025 are scheduled for the third Saturdays of January, April and October.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Event staff and material costs were funded by the Refuse fund.

ALTERNATIVES:

None.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Event Images_10.19.2024.pdf
731
October 19, 2024732
October 19, 2024733
October 19, 2024
734
October 19, 2024
735
October 19, 2024
736
October 19, 2024
737
October 19, 2024 738
October 19, 2024
739
October 19, 2024
740
October 19, 2024
741
October 19, 2024 742
October 19, 2024 743
October 19, 2024 744
October 19, 2024 745
October 19, 2024
746

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Accept as Complete Various Improvements Related to the Atwell Specific Plan Development and Authorize 90% Reduction of the Improvement Bonds
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council accepts as complete various improvements related to the Atwell Specific Plan Development and authorize the 90% reduction of the improvement bonds.

BACKGROUND:

City Council adopted Resolution 2019-151 on December 10, 2019 that approved Final Tract Map 37298- 1 for recordation, authorized staff to sign the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and accept Labor and Material Bonds for public improvements. These improvements were required under project conditions of approval. The improvements are related to the backbone infrastructure in Atwell Development Phase 1A, supporting Development Areas 1A, 1B, 2A, 3, 17 and 20. The residential development areas are nearly built out.

JUSTIFICATION:

Staff has verified through inspections that the required public improvements were completed per City standards and specifications and recommends that City Council accept the improvements as complete and authorize the 90% bond exoneration for the following bonds:

BOND NUMBER IMPROVEMENT
CMS331796 Ph. 1A Landmark Way Non Potable Water
CMS331792 Ph. 1A Landmark Way Domestic Water
CMS331795 Ph. 1A Landmark Way Storm Drain
CMS331794 Ph. 1A Landmark Way Sewer
CMS331793 Ph. 1A Landmark Way Street
CMS331804 Ph. 1A Meadowline Way Non Potable Water
CMS331805 Ph. 1A Meadowline Way Storm Drain
CMS331806 Ph. 1A Meadowline Way Sewer
CMS331802 Ph. 1A Meadowline Way Street
CMS331803 Ph. 1A Meadowline Way Domestic Water
CMS339961 Ph. 1B Meadowline Way Non-Potable Water
CMS339969 Ph. 1B Meadowline Way Domestic Water
747
CMS339972 Ph. 1B Meadowline Way Street
The remaining 10% of the bond amounts will remain for a period of 12 months (maintenance period) at which point the 10% balance will be released and the improvements will become City owned and maintained improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Not Applicable
ALTERNATIVES:

Do not accept staff's recommendation and provide staff with alternative direction.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Att. 1 Landmark (Ph1A).pdf

2. Att. 2 Meadowline (Ph1A).pdf

3. Att. 3 Meadowline (Ph1B).pdf
748
PEX ST. MARIAN

MEADOWLINE
WAY

LANDMARK WAY

CREEKSIDE AVENUE
SD
SD
SD
SD

ATWELL DRIVE
APEX ST.

SEE ABOVE LEFT

SEE BELOW RIGHT

SCE CORRIDOOR
SD SD
SD
PA 17

COMMERCIAL
PA 2A
PA 1A
PA 1B
TR. 37474
PA 20

SCHOOL SITE

COMMERCIAL
PA 18
TR. 37365
PA 26
4 PA
9B
PA PA 35A
PA 23

OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE
PA
22 SD
PA 3
PARK

HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVENUE

WILSON STREET SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
PARK
SD STARLIGHT AVE.

STORM DRAINAGE
LEGEND:

PHASE 1A, LANDMARK WAY EXHIBIT
STREETS 8TH ST. SUNDANCE DR. OAK VALLEY PKWY.

SIERRA PLACE

EVENFALL DRIVE

MALLOW WAY

COOLWATER WAY

QUAIL WAY
REBLOOM DR.

TWILIGHT DR.

TREELINE COURT SWIFT DR.

MONARCH WAY

HARMONY WAY

AURAL PLACE REDBUD AVENUE PINYON LANE

TIMBRE WAY

HAZEL LANE BANBURY LANE

VERDE WAY

RAVEN WAY

KEYSTONE WAY OSO LANE

LATITUDE
ROAD
TIERRA DR.

NECTAR DRIVE

ALOE WAY

GARDEN WAY

RICHLAND DRIVE BLACKBRUSH WAY

BILLOW WAY REED PLACE

MARIPOSA DRIVE

KNOLL PLACE

BOTANIC ROAD

LANDMARK WAY
749
PEX ST. MARIAN

MEADOWLINE
WAY

LANDMARK WAY

CREEKSIDE AVENUE
SD
SD
SD
SD

ATWELL DRIVE
APEX ST.

SEE ABOVE LEFT

SEE BELOW RIGHT

SCE CORRIDOOR
SD SD
SD
PA 17

COMMERCIAL
PA 2A
PA 1A
PA 1B
TR. 37474
PA 20

SCHOOL SITE

COMMERCIAL
PA 18
TR. 37365
PA 26
4 PA
9B
PA PA 35A
PA 23

OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE
PA
22 SD
PA 3
PARK

HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVENUE

WILSON STREET SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
PARK
SD STARLIGHT AVE.

STORM DRAINAGE
LEGEND:

PHASE 1A, MEADOWLINE WAY EXHIBIT
STREETS 8TH ST. SUNDANCE DR. OAK VALLEY PKWY.

SIERRA PLACE

EVENFALL DRIVE

MALLOW WAY

COOLWATER WAY

QUAIL WAY
REBLOOM DR.

TWILIGHT DR.

TREELINE COURT SWIFT DR.

MONARCH WAY

HARMONY WAY

AURAL PLACE REDBUD AVENUE PINYON LANE

TIMBRE WAY

HAZEL LANE BANBURY LANE

VERDE WAY

RAVEN WAY

KEYSTONE WAY OSO LANE

LATITUDE
ROAD
TIERRA DR.

NECTAR DRIVE

ALOE WAY

GARDEN WAY

RICHLAND DRIVE BLACKBRUSH WAY

BILLOW WAY REED PLACE

MARIPOSA DRIVE

KNOLL PLACE

BOTANIC ROAD

MEADOWLINE WAY
750

SUNDANCE

STARLIGHT
DRIVE
AVENUE

HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVENUE

LANDMARK WAY
2684.73 2.25%
2687.52 FS 3.01%

1.00%
2684.96 GB/FS
2% 2.13%2%
2685.16 FS
2684.83
2687.91
2684.83 2.91%
2687.6
2687.1 3.6% 2.3%
FL 2.17%
2687.40 FS
GB
GB

ATWELL DRIVE

MEADOWLINE WAY

SCE CORRIDOOR
SD SD
SD
PA 17

COMMERCIAL
PA 2A
PA 1A
PA 1B
PA 24
PA 38
PA 25
PA 35A
PA 23

OPEN SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
PA 50B
SD
PA 7
PA 6
PA 2B
PA 8A
PA 8B OPEN SPACE
SD
SD
PHASE 1B, MEADOWLINE WAY EXHIBIT

STORM DRAINAGE
LEGEND:

STREETS

MEADOWLINE WAY
751

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Stephanie Sirls, Transit Manager
Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Renewable Natural Gas Supply Agreement with AmpRenew Offtake I, LLC
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Renewable Natural Gas Supply Agreement with AmpRenew Offtake I LLC (AmpRenew) and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute Amendment No.1 to the Renewable Natural Gas Supply Agreement.

BACKGROUND:

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a key part of a comprehensive set of programs in California to cut Green House Gas emissions and other smog-forming and toxic air pollutants by improving vehicle technology, reducing fuel consumption, and increasing transportation mobility options. The LCFS is designed to decrease the carbon intensity (Cl) of California's transportation fuel pool and provide an increasing range of low-carbon and renewable alternatives, which reduce petroleum dependency and achieve air quality benefits.

Fuels in the California transportation fuel pool that have a Cl lower than the target established by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) generate LCFS credits. Those fuels in the transportation fuel pool with CIs higher than the target generate fuel deficits. A fuel producer with deficits must have enough credits through generation and acquisition to be in annual compliance with LCFS. Credit owners have the option of selling or trading their credits with other deficit holders.

Amp Americas II, LLC (“Amp”) is the parent company of AmpRenew. Founded in 2011, Amp is an American-owned developer, owner, and operator of facilities that convert dairy waste into carbon negative Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). Amp registered the first several dairy RNG projects certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard Program (“RFS”) to generate D3 RINs and the first several dairy RNG projects certified by CARB’s LCFS.

Amp currently manages one of the largest portfolios of dairy RNG projects in the U.S. and supplies RNG to heavy duty truck and bus fleets throughout California.

AmpRenew, a marketing entity of Amp, provides environmental attributes and gas marketing services for biogas operations across the country.

JUSTIFICATION:

The City of Banning (“City”) owns and operates a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility, which delivers RNG.
752
City Council authorized the City to enter into an agreement with AmpRenew January 12, 2021. In its current partnership with AmpRenew, both entities mutually benefit from RIN and LCFS credits generated by reducing California’s GHG emissions.

If approved, the amendment to the RNG Supply Agreement with AmpRenew will further increase the City‘s share of RIN and LCFS credits, which w*ill help offset the City's current cost of purchasing natural gas.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Over the past three fiscal years the City received $51,694 in RIN/LCFS credits related to the AmpRenew Agreement, which covered approximately 14% of the City's natural gas purchases for it's CNG fueling facility during that same period. Staff estimates that the Amendment No. 1 could approximately double the City credits.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not approve the amendment to the Renewable Natural Gas Agreement with AmpRenew and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Banning RNG Supply Agreement vF (Fully Executed).pdf

2. Amp-Banning 1st Amend to RNG Supply Agreement (003) (002).docx 753
Execution Version
Amp Contract ID D-RNG-0091

RNG SUPPLY AGREEMENT
This RNG Supply Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of March 15, 2021 (the “Execution Date”) by and between ampRenew Offtake I LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Provider”) and the City of Banning, a city in Riverside County, California (“Dispenser”). Dispenser and Provider may each be referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Provider is in the business of producing and procuring RNG (and associated Green Attributes) for sale and distribution;
WHEREAS, Dispenser desires to purchase RNG from Provider for delivery and use as vehicle fuel at its gas fueling station located at 176 E. Lincoln Street, Banning, California 92220 (the “CNG Facility”), which has a CNG dispensing capacity of greater than [XXXX] GGE per day;
WHEREAS, each of Provider’s supply sources providing RNG hereunder has enrolled or will enroll in a voluntary Quality Assurance Program (“QAP”) for the generation of RINs; and WHEREAS, each of Provider’s supply sources providing RNG hereunder has enrolled or will enroll in a voluntary Carbon Intensity Program (“CI”) for the generation of LCFS Credits.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the agreements set forth hereafter, the sufficiency of such consideration being acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITIONS

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used herein will have the meanings set forth below.
“Advanced Biofuel” means a renewable fuel as defined in the RFS program (40 C.F.R. §

80.1401 (2012)).
“Agreement” shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble. “CARB” means the California Air Resources Board or its successor agency and policies established under the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17 §§ 95480-90 (2010).) (collectively, the “LCFS”), applying to any fuel that is sold, supplied, or offered for sale in California.
“Cellulosic Biofuel” means a renewable fuel derived from any cellulose, hemi-cellulose or lignin that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least sixty percent (60%) less than the Baseline Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions (as defined in the RFS program (40 C.F.R. § 80.1401 (2012)).
“CI” shall have the meaning set forth in the foregoing recitals. 754

“Claims” shall have the meaning set forth in Article 3.12 herein. “CNG Facility” shall have the meaning set forth in the foregoing recitals. “Deliver,” “Delivered,” and “Delivery” shall refer to the action and result of the RNG originating from or procured by Provider being or having been transported to the Delivery Point for use by Dispenser during the Delivery Period.
“Delivery Period” shall have the meaning set forth in Article 3.1 herein. “Delivery Point” means the CNG Facility’s point of interconnection with the local distribution company SoCalGas, meter number 14166153.
“Dispenser” shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble. “Dispenser’s RIN Share” shall have the meaning set forth in Article 3.7 herein. “Dispenser’s LCFS Share” shall have the meaning set forth in Article 3.8 herein. “Effective Date” meansthe earliest date after the Execution Date upon which all conditions precedent, as set forth in Article 2 herein, have been completed. “EMTS” means the EPA Moderated Transaction System or any replacement or successor system designated by the EPA.
“EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency or successive agency overseeing the RFS.
“Execution Date” shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble. “Force Majeure” means any event beyond the Parties’ reasonable control, including but not limited to flood, drought, earthquake, hurricane, unusually severe weather or storms, fire, lightning or other Acts of God; epidemic or pandemic; war; riot; civil disturbance; sabotage; restraint by a Governmental Authority; a failure to obtain required permits or approvals or renewal of same, provided that diligent action was taken to obtain them; or failure or breakdown of machinery, equipment or lines of pipe that was not due to a failure of the affected Party to operate and maintain it in accordance with prudent industry practices.
“Gasoline Gallon Equivalent” or “GGE” means the amount of RNG it takes to equal the energy content of one liquid gallon of gasoline.
“Green Attributes” means any and all environmental attributes associated with the use of RNG as an Advanced Biofuel, Cellulosic Biofuel, low carbon fuel or Alternative Fuel including, without limitation, RINs and LCFS Credits.
“Governmental Authority” means any federal, state, local, or other governmental, regulatory or administrative agency, court, commission, department, board, or other governmental subdivision, legislature, rulemaking board, tribunal, or other governmental authority.
“Invalidation Event” shall have the meaning set forth in Article 3.16 herein. “LCFS Credit(s)” means credits generated and traded under the LCFS, with each credit equal to one metric tonne of Carbon Dioxide reductions as compared to the baseline CO2 emissions under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
“LCFS Existing Credits” means the number of LCFS Credits generated using the CI value of Pathway Code CNGF205 for compressed Gas (i.e., not compressed RNG), which is currently 79.46.
755

“LCFS Incremental Credits” means the difference in the number of LCFS Credits generated using a CI value of forty-two (42) and the LCFS Existing Credits. “LRT-CBTS” means “LCFS Reporting Tool and Credit Bank and Transfer System”. “Maximum Dispensing Commitment” means the total volume of CNG dispensed from the CNG Facility as Vehicle Fuel in any given month.
“OPIS Price” means, with respect to RINs, ninety-eight percent (98%) the simple average of the daily price published in the Oil Price Information Service’s (OPIS) Carbon Market Report for D3 RINs (under the “Mean” column) during the applicable calendar month of Delivery and, with respect to LCFS Credits, ninety-eight percent (98%) the simple average of the mid-point of the “Low” and “High” daily prices published in the OPIS Carbon Market Report for LCFS Credits during the applicable calendar quarter of Delivery. “Party(ies)” shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble. “Provider” shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble. “QAP” shall have the meaning set forth in the foregoing recitals. “Renewable Fuel Standard” or “RFS” means the renewable energy program and policies established by the Environmental Protection Agency and published on March 26, 2010 (at 75 Fed. Reg. 14670) and effective July 1, 2010, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 80.1401 et seq. “Renewable Identification Number (RIN)” is a number generated to represent a volume of renewable fuel as defined in Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 75 Fed. Reg. 16484 (March 26, 2010) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 80.1425 (2011); 40 C.F.R. § 80.1426 (2012)).
“RNG” means renewable natural gas, also known as pipeline quality natural gas derived from the decomposition of organic matter that meets the RFS eligibility requirements as either an Advanced Biofuel or Cellulosic Biofuel.
“Vehicle Fuel” means compressed natural gas (“CNG”) or liquefied natural gas (“LNG”), which can be derived from RNG, used as transportation fuel, as defined in 40 C.F.R.

80.1401.
“Year” shall mean a period of 365-consecutive days, starting on the Effective Date, with subsequent Years commencing on the anniversary of the Effective Date, except that in leap years, such as 2016 and 2020, a Year will have 366 consecutive days ARTICLE 2 - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
The following are conditions precedent to the obligations of Provider pursuant to this Agreement. The appropriate Party will use its best efforts to fulfill the conditions precedent as soon as commercially practicable. Upon completion of each condition precedent (or upon waiver thereof by Provider in its sole discretion as provided by law), Provider will provide notice to Dispenser, pursuant to Section 5.10 herein, that the condition has been satisfied.

2.1 Provider’s completion of reasonably satisfactory due diligence on Dispenser and the CNG Facility, as determined in Provider’s sole discretion. Such due diligence shall include verification that the CNG Facility is compliant with the requirements necessary to generate valid Green Attributes.
756

2.2 Dispenser providing Provider with true and accurate dispensing data demonstrating a minimum mean average of 500 MMBtu per month dispensed from the CNG Facility over the immediately prior twelve (12) months.

2.3 Provider’s modification of existing agreements with its gas marketers or formation of new agreements, as necessary, to Deliver RNG to the Delivery Point.

2.4 Provider’s successful completion of RFS registration with the EPA to allow for the generation of RINs from the RNG Delivered under this Agreement.

2.5 Provider’s ability to successfully complete the Carbon Intensity registration with CARB to allow for the generation of LCFS Credits from the RNG Delivered under this Agreement.

ARTICLE 3 - SPECIFIC TERMS OF PURCHASE AND SALE
The following terms, conditions and performance standards will govern the obligations of the Parties pursuant to this Agreement:

3.1 Delivery Period. This Agreement will remain in place for five (5) Years from the Effective Date (the “Delivery Period”) unless otherwise terminated on the conditions as provided herein.

3.2 Quantity of RNG; Dispenser’s Termination Right; Monthly Nominations.

3.2.1 Dispenser shall have a firm obligation to dispense RNG from Provider at its CNG Facility on a monthly basis up to the Maximum Dispensing Commitment for such month.

3.2.2 Provider will Deliver RNG as available up to the Maximum Dispensing Commitment but has no firm Delivery obligation.

3.2.3 At least ten (10) days in advance of each month, Dispenser will provide a non-binding indication of anticipated daily CNG dispensing volumes from its CNG Facility for the upcoming month. No later than twenty (20) days after the end of each month, Dispenser will provide the CNG Facility’s actual dispensed CNG volumes for such month together with the applicable gas utility invoice.

3.3 No Natural Gas Deliveries. Dispenser will continue to obtain its supply of natural gas for converting into CNG under its current and/or amended gas marketing agreement(s) with third-party suppliers, it being understood that Deliveries hereunder do not include physical gas delivery. Accordingly, the purchase price for such natural gas shall not be part of this Agreement.

3.4 Provider Performance Obligations. Provider shall provide to Dispenser all information reasonably required and available to Provider in connection with Dispenser’s performance of its obligations under Section 3.5 of this Agreement.

3.5 Dispenser’s Performance Obligations.

3.5.1 Dispenser shall utilize and directly dispense all RNG Delivered by Provider into the tank of a vehicle as Vehicle Fuel and for no other purpose. 757

3.5.2 Dispenser’s obligation to utilize and dispense RNG Delivered by Provider shall have priority over any other obligation of Dispenser to utilize and dispense RNG from third parties.

3.5.3 Dispenser shall maintain any and all local, state and federal permits, licenses and certifications necessary to operate a CNG station at the Delivery Point in compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations, whether in existence on the Execution Date or promulgated thereafter at any time and from time to time during the Delivery Period.

3.5.4 Dispenser shall provide affidavits (in such periodic intervals as may be required for compliance with the RFS and LCFS), in the form and substance of Exhibit A attached hereto. Such affidavits may be used by Provider in connection with its initial pathway registrations and subsequent quarterly EPA and CARB compliance filings in support of reporting relative to the respective RINs and LCFS Credits generated from the utilization of the RNG as Vehicle Fuel.

3.5.5 No later than ten (10) business days after a request from Provider, Dispenser will provide any support that Provider may reasonably require under the RFS or LCFS for the generation, separation and sale of RINs or LCFS Credits, including without limitation:
utility bills, affidavits, station tax filings, transaction (including vehicle split) records, and other supporting documentation to ascertain the end use of the RNG Delivered by Provider.

3.6 Green Attributes Associated with RNG. For all RNG Delivered pursuant to this Agreement, Provider represents and warrants to Dispenser that: (i) it has the rights to all Green Attributes associated with such RNG, (ii) such RNG is received from a production facility that produces pipeline quality natural gas, and (iii) such RNG is Delivered to Dispenser in accordance with the requirements of the RFS and the LCFS in order to preserve the Green Attributes.

3.7 RIN Allocations between Dispenser and Provider. Provider or its designated affiliate or upstream supplier shall have the sole right to generate all Green Attributes, including but not limited to RINs and all financial and other benefits associated therewith, for all RNG Delivered to Dispenser. For all RINs generated from RNG Deliveries to Dispenser under this Agreement, Dispenser shall be entitled to receive from Provider two percent (2%) of the OPIS Price for all RINs so generated (“Dispenser’s RIN Share”). Provider shall pay Dispenser’s RIN Share to Dispenser on a monthly basis within twenty (20) business days of delivery of such RINs into Provider’s EMTS account.

3.8 LCFS Allocations between Dispenser and Provider. Provider or its designated affiliate or upstream supplier shall be the Fuel Pathway Holder (as that term is defined in the LCFS) with respect to all RNG delivered hereunder and shall have the sole right to generate all LCFS Credits and all financial and other benefits associated therewith, for all RNG Delivered to Dispenser. For all LCFS Credits generated from RNG Deliveries to Dispenser under this Agreement, (a) Dispenser shall be entitled to receive from Provider one hundred percent (100%) of the LCFS Existing Credits so generated, and (b) Dispenser shall be entitled to receive from Provider twenty-five percent (25%) of the OPIS Price for all LCFS Incremental Credits so generated ((a) and (b) collectively, “Dispenser’s LCFS Share”). Provider shall pay Dispenser’s LCFS Share to Dispenser on a monthly basis within twenty (20) business days of delivery of such LCFS Credits into Provider’s LRT-CBTS account.
758

3.9 LCFS Existing Credits for Dispensed Natural Gas. Provider shall have no rights or any financial or other benefits to LCFS Existing Credits generated from natural gas dispensed by Dispenser that is not RNG Delivered by Provider at the Delivery Point. Provider shall not be responsible for generating or marketing any such LCFS Existing Credits. If Dispenser, at its sole option, determines to generate any such LCFS Existing Credits, it shall first obtain Provider’s specific written approval for all CARB filings affiliated therewith, the delivery of which shall not be conditioned, delayed or unreasonably withheld, to ensure alignment of all LCFS Credit filings for the CNG Facility.

3.10 RNG Registration.

3.10.1 Prior to Delivery of the RNG to Dispenser, Provider or its designee shall submit to the EPA and provide to Dispenser, as necessary, copies of any and all documentation required by the EPA to certify that the RNG is an Advanced Biofuel or Cellulosic Biofuel that can generate D Code 3 or D Code 5 RINs. Provider shall Deliver QAP RNG to Dispenser during the Delivery Period; provided, that Provider may Deliver non-QAP RNG to the extent that its RNG supply source is currently undergoing certification under a QAP with a reasonable likelihood of success.

3.10.2 Prior to Delivery of the RNG to Dispenser, Provider or its designee shall submit to CARB and provide to Dispenser, as necessary, copies of any and all documentation required by CARB to certify that the RNG does qualify for LCFS Credits.

3.11 Further Assurances. Each Party will provide the other Party such cooperation, additional documentation, certifications or other information as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement (including pursuant to any audit of this Agreement by a third party) and in order for title to the conveyed Green Attributes to vest as appropriate.

3.12 Indemnification.

3.12.1 Dispenser Indemnities. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement, Dispenser agrees to indemnify Provider and save it harmless from all losses, liabilities, penalties, fines, charges or claims, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of court, arising out of any third-party claim (collectively, “Claims”) based on: (i) personal injury (including death) to the third-party claimant or damage to the property of such third-party claimant directly resulting from the RNG that occur after title passes to Dispenser or other charges thereon that attach after title passes to Dispenser to the extent such Claims are not based upon any breach by or fault of Provider hereunder; (ii) Dispenser-provided falsehoods, misrepresentations, material inaccuracies or misleading statement in any supporting documentation, including, without limitation, registrations or any attestation related to RIN or LCFS Credit generation; (iii) Dispenser’s gross negligence or willful misconduct or (iv) Dispenser’s material breach of this Agreement.

3.12.2 Provider Indemnities. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement, Provider agrees to indemnify Dispenser and save it harmless from all Claims based on: (i) personal injury (including death) to the third-party claimant or damage to the property of such third-party claimant directly resulting from the RNG that occur before 759

title passes to Dispenser or other charges thereon that attach before title passes to Dispenser to the extent such Claims are not based upon any breach by or fault of Dispenser hereunder; (ii) Provider-provided falsehoods, misrepresentations, material inaccuracies or misleading statement in any supporting documentation, including, without limitation, registrations or any attestation related to RIN or LCFS Credit generation; (iii) Provider’s gross negligence or willful misconduct or (iv) Provider’s material breach of this Agreement.

3.13 Notice of Changes. Dispenser shall notify Provider, as soon as commercially practicable, in the event of actual or anticipated loss of total CNG fuel demand in a material amount (i.e., demand loss greater than twenty-five percent (25%) of the prior 12-month dispensing average).

3.14 Events of Default. Any material breach of the obligations and covenants in Articles 3 or 5 of this Agreement by either Party, or any breach by either Party of any representation or warranty in this Agreement (which breach, if capable of being cured, remains uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following written notice by the non-defaulting Party to the other), shall constitute an “Event of Default” for which the non-defaulting Party shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement and to exercise all rights and remedies available under applicable law; provided, however, that if either Party fails to pay any undisputed amount when due and payable to the other Party or to its gas suppliers, or to transfer any Green Attributes when due and transferable to the other Party, under this Agreement and such failure is not corrected or cured within five (5) business days after receipt of notice, then such failure shall constitute an “Event of Default” hereunder. It shall also be deemed an “Event of Default” immediately upon either Party becoming insolvent or seeking the protection from its creditors (or having such petition filed or proceeding commenced against it) under the United States Bankruptcy Code (or under any similar laws).

3.15 Disqualified RNG. Either Party will promptly notify the other Party if (i) any RNG Delivered under this Agreement is determined to be “disqualified” by the EPA or CARB, or (ii) any Green Attributes generated from any RNG Delivered under this Agreement is determined to be “invalidated” by the EPA or CARB (in either case, an “Invalidation Event”). If an Invalidation Event occurs without the fault of Provider, Dispenser shall promptly return any Dispenser’s RIN Share or Dispenser’s LCFS Share, as applicable, related to the associated RNG so invalidated. If an Invalidation Event occurs at the direct or indirect fault of Dispenser: (a) Dispenser shall deliver to Provider qualified replacements of any Green Attributes invalidated or the cash value thereof, with such value calculated based on the respective OPIS Price for the same calendar month or quarter, respectively, in which the invalidated RINs and/or LCFS Credits were or would have been generated; and (b) Provider shall have the right to (y) cease Delivery of RNG to Dispenser and (z) terminate this Agreement (and any such termination shall be considered to be an Event of Default with the Provider being the non-defaulting Party).

3.16 Title and Risk of Loss. Title to the RNG and risk of loss shall remain with Provider until the RNG is Delivered to the Delivery Point, at which point the title to the RNG and the risk of loss shall pass to Dispenser. Title to conform with the RFS. 760

ARTICLE 4 - FORCE MAJEURE

4.1 In an event of Force Majeure, the affected Party is excused from performance for a period of time as is reasonably necessary to resume normal operations, provided such affected Party continuously makes commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate and resolve such event.

4.2 The Parties are under an obligation to promptly provide notice, pursuant to Section

5.10 herein, of any Force Majeure event and keep the other Party reasonably informed regarding the status of its efforts to resume normal operations.

4.3 The existence of a condition or event of Force Majeure will not relieve the impacted Party from: (i) other obligations under this Agreement to the extent that performance is not precluded by the condition or event of Force Majeure and (ii) obligations to make payments under this Agreement.

4.4 If an event of Force Majeure prevents a Party from delivering or receiving RNG under this Agreement and such event continues (i) for more than ninety (90) consecutive days or (ii) for more than one hundred and eighty (180) cumulative days during any Year, the Party not claiming the event of Force Majeure may terminate this Agreement.

ARTICLE 5 - MISCELLANEOUS

5.1 Audit. Provider shall have the right, at its own expense, upon reasonable notice and at reasonable times, to: examine and audit, and to obtain copies of, the relevant portion of the books and records of Dispenser; access natural gas utility meters at the CNG Facility; and contact natural gas utility and service providers on Dispenser’s behalf, all of which may occur only to the extent reasonably necessary to verify the accuracy of any statement, charge, payment, or computation made under this Agreement. This right to examine, audit, and to obtain copies shall not be available with respect to confidential or proprietary information not directly relevant to transactions under this Agreement. All invoices and billings shall be conclusively presumed final and accurate and all associated claims for under- or overpayments shall be deemed waived unless such invoices or billings are objected to in writing, with adequate explanation and/or documentation, within two years after the month of RNG delivery. All retroactive adjustments to any such invoices or billings shall be paid in full by the Party owing payment within thirty (30) days of notice and substantiation of such inaccuracy.

5.2 Tax Treatment.

5.2.1 The Parties agree that a RIN certificate is not tangible personal property. The RIN certificate represents only the intangible rights and benefits accruing to a blender of a renewable fuel into petroleum-based fuel or blendstocks as conferred by federal environmental authorities. The Parties further agree that these intangible rights and benefits are fully transferable and are severed from the physical act of blending or producing renewable fuels.

5.2.2 The Parties agree that a LCFS Credit is not tangible personal property. The LCFS Credit represents only the intangible rights and benefits accruing to a Regulated Party (as defined in the LCFS) based upon the carbon intensity of transportation fuel sold, supplied or offered for sale in California by the Regulated Party as conferred by CARB. 761

The Parties further agree that these intangible rights and benefits are fully transferable and are severed from the physical act of blending or producing transportation fuels.

5.2.3 Unless otherwise specifically provided elsewhere in the Agreement or required by law, any federal, state, or local tax, duty or fee, or the amount equivalent thereto, now or hereafter imposed, levied or assessed by any governmental agency, authority or subdivision, upon, measured by, incident to, or as a result of, Dispenser’s RIN Share or Dispenser’s LCFS Share must, if collectible or payable by Provider, be paid or reimbursed by Dispenser on demand by Provider. Dispenser specifically agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Provider from and against any such tax, duty or fee.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is understood and agreed that this provision will not apply to income, franchise, or like taxes levied on, or measured by, a Party’s net income; nor will this provision apply to business, occupation, license or similar taxes required for the maintenance of corporate existence. If Dispenser claims exemption from any of the aforesaid taxes, then Dispenser will furnish Provider with a properly completed and executed exemption certificate in the form and within the time limits prescribed by, and acceptable to, the appropriate taxing authority in lieu of payment of such taxes or reimbursement of such taxes to delivering Party. Consistent with Section 5.2.1 or 5.2.2., as applicable, Provider will not charge sales or use tax on the allocation of Dispenser’s RIN Share or Dispenser’s LCFS Share.

5.2.4 The Parties agree to cooperate with each other in defending non-taxable RIN and LCFS Credit transfers (including transfers of Dispenser’s RIN Share and Dispenser’s LCFS Share) pursuant to the Agreement if a Party is audited by or on behalf of a taxing jurisdiction for ad valorem, sales, use, motor fuels, excise, or similar taxes, including, but not limited to producing existing documentation, generating new reports from existing electronic reporting systems and making employees available at no cost, other than reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, to the other Party. Both Parties further agree to retain applicable records for a period of not less than the applicable statute of limitations, including any waivers thereof, executed by either Party for any taxes collected by or reimbursed to that Party.

5.3 Representations and Warranties. Each of the Parties to this Agreement represents and warrants that, as of the Execution Date: (i) it has full and complete authority to enter into and perform this Agreement; (ii) the person who executes this Agreement on its behalf has full and complete authority to do so and is empowered to bind it thereby; and (iii) it is not insolvent and has not sought protection from its creditors under the United States Bankruptcy Code, or under any similar laws. Dispenser further represents and warrants to Provider that: (a) it has applied for and obtained all local, state and federal permits, licenses and certifications necessary to operate a CNG station at the Delivery Point in compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations in effect on the Execution Date, and (b) it has not sold or otherwise pledged (and will not sell or otherwise pledge during the Delivery Period) the rights to any RINs or LCFS Incremental Credits to be generated from RNG Delivered hereunder.

5.4 Counterparts/Headings/Construction. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will constitute an original and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. The headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are used solely for convenience and shall not be used to construe or interpret the provisions of this 762

Agreement. The language used in this Agreement is the product of both Parties’ efforts and each Party irrevocably waives the benefit of any rule of contract construction which disfavors the drafter of a contract or the drafter of specific language in a contract.

5.5 Entire Agreement Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the purchase by Dispenser and sale by Provider of RNG, and supersedes and replaces any prior and contemporaneous communications, understandings and agreements between Provider and Dispenser related to such subject matter, whether written or verbal, express or implied. No modification, amendment, supplementation or alteration of the terms and provisions of this Agreement will be or become effective except by written amendment executed by the duly authorized representative of both Parties.

5.6 Assignment. Neither Party may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed), except that Provider may assign this Agreement to an affiliate or bona fide purchaser of Provider’s RNG supply without consent of Dispenser (to be noticed to Dispenser within thirty (30) days of any such assignment).

5.7 Survival of Terms. Upon expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, the Parties agree that any and all terms and conditions of this Agreement that are necessary to effectuate the Parties’rights and remedies will survive the termination of this Agreement until such time as the rights and remedies and all disputes related thereto are fully and finally resolved. This Article 5.7 shall apply with respect to RNG Delivered hereunder prior to the date of termination to ensure that RINs (and the associated Dispenser’s RIN Share) and LCFS Credits (and the associated Dispenser’s LCFS Share) are generated, sold and transferred to the respective Party as though this Agreement were still in full force and effect.

5.8 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement without regard to its conflict of laws provisions, except to the extent that the Renewable Fuel Standard, together with decisions promulgated thereunder, are applicable to the purchase and sale of RNG. Any action to enforce this Agreement will be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction within the Riverside County, California, and the Parties consent to personal jurisdiction in such courts.

5.9 Forward Contract. The Parties intend that each transaction hereunder shall constitute a “forward contract” under §101(25) of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., as amended from time to time (the “Bankruptcy Code”), and that each Party shall be a “forward contract merchant” under §101(26) for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.

5.10 Notices. Any notice required hereunder shall be deemed given if in writing and delivered to the other Party at its last known address, either by transmitting via facsimile at its facsimile telephone number, or 3 days after deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the Party; provided, however, that any notice of termination hereunder shall be deemed given only if in writing and delivered to the Party entitled to notice, either by personal delivery, Federal Express or other nationally recognized courier service or certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested and addressed to:

If to Provider, to:
763

ampRenew Offtake I LLC
2001 N. Clybourn Ave., Suite 400
Chicago, Illinois 60614
Attn: Senior Counsel
Email: [email protected]
or
if to Dispenser, to:

City of Banning
PO Box 998
Banning, California 92220
Attn: Sergio Rubio, Fleet Manager
Email: [email protected]

5.11 Confidential Information.

5.11.1 The Parties shall treat as strictly confidential all information they obtain in connection with this Agreement which (i) is confidential or proprietary to either Party; (ii) relates to the operations, policies, procedures, techniques, accounts and personnel of either Party; or (iii) is confidential or proprietary to a third party and is in the possession, custody or control of either Party. Without the other Party’s written permission, neither Party shall disclose information pertaining to this Agreement or any information obtained through the performance of this Agreement unless required to be disclosed pursuant to applicable law, regulation or legal process (including without limitation the RFS or LCFS).

5.11.2 Notwithstanding the terms of subsection 5.11.1., Provider may share the commercial information contained in this Agreement with third-party biogas project developers, provided Provider ensures that such developers are bound by the same or similar confidentiality provisions as provided in this Section 5.11. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

5.11.3 Notwithstanding the terms of subsection 5.11.1., each Party agrees to allow the other Party: (i) the use of its company names, logos, and trademarks solely for the purpose of business development and publicizing and promoting the green energy marketing effort, provided that other uses of such company names, logos and trademarks are not authorized without written consent of the other Party, and (ii) the right to issue press releases and to make public statements regarding the general aspects of this Agreement (e.g., Parties to the agreement, the purchase and sale of RNG, and the environmental benefits associated with this Agreement), provided that any public statement by a Party hereto concerning this Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the other Party before release to the public, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.

5.12 Non-Solicitation of Employees and Introduced Parties. Dispenser agrees that, upon execution of this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year following termination hereof, it will not solicit, induce, recruit or otherwise encourage, or take any other action which is intended to solicit, induce, recruit or otherwise encourage (or could reasonably be expected to have the effect of the foregoing), any employee of Provider to leave his or her employment, and will not hire, 764

engage or retain or attempt to hire, engage or retain any such employee without Provider’s prior written consent; provided, that the foregoing shall not prevent Dispenser from hiring, engaging or retaining an employee of Provider who responds to a general solicitation for employment conducted by Dispenser which does not directly target such employee. Dispenser further agrees that, upon execution of this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year following the termination hereof, it will not, for the purpose of avoiding the payment to Provider of profits, fees or otherwise, directly or indirectly contact, deal with or otherwise become involved with any party who is a supplier of RNG to Provider or who is a prospective supplier of RNG to Provider, without the specific written approval of Provider, the delivery of which shall not be unreasonably withheld. [Signature page follows]
765
Grant Zimmerman
CEO
766

EXHIBIT A

COMPLIANCE AFFIDAVITS
767

REGISTRATION AFFIDAVIT
The City of Banning, a California city (“Affiant”), hereby states and certifies as follows:

1. That Affiant and AmpRenew Offtake I LLC (“Amp”), a Delaware limited liability corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Amp Americas II, LLC, executed a RNG Supply Agreement on _______________, 201__ (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which Affiant would purchase biogas from Amp for use as transportation fuel in the form of compressed natural gas;

2. That, pursuant to the Agreement, Amp will nominate on a monthly basis the quantity of biogas to be sold to Affiant;

3. That Affiant will receive possession of such biogas from Amp via a commercial distribution system sales point located at ____________________________, ______________, California [station address] [city]
(“CNG Station”);

4. That Affiant will only dispense the biogas purchased under the Agreement at the CNG Station;

5. That Affiant will only dispense the biogas purchased pursuant to the Agreement as a transportation fuel and for no other purpose;

6. That Affiant has not and will not rely upon the volume of biogas purchased pursuant to the Agreement for the creation of any Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”), as such term is defined by 40 C.F.R. 80.1101(o); and

7. That the undersigned, as _________________ of Affiant, has all requisite knowledge and [title]
authority to make this affidavit on behalf of Affiant.

DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____________, 20__
By: ______________________________
Name:

Title:

Company:
[See attached notarial certificate]
768
}

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
County of Riverside
On , before me, , Notary Public,
personally appeared ____________________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

SIGNATURE

PLACE NOTARY SEAL ABOVE
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.

Description of attached document
Title or type of document: _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Document Date: Number of Pages:

Signer(s) Other than Named Above:

A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 769

CNG DISPENSER AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ________
COUNTY OF ___________________
I the undersigned, _______________, _______________ of the City of Banning, California [name] [title]
(“Dispenser”), acting on behalf of Dispenser, hereby attest to the following statements to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. I oversee the supply and distribution of CNG for vehicle fuel use at Dispenser.

2. Dispenser owns and operates the following station that produces CNG for use as a transportation fuel (“Qualified CNG Facilities”):

Table 1: Qualified CNG Facilities
Site Name Street Address City State Postal Code Meter ID LDC Supplying Gas

3. Dispenser has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with AmpRenew Offtake I LLC (“Amp”) for the supply of pipeline quality gas that is used at the Qualified CNG Facilities, such agreement as follows:

The delivery period is _____________, 20___ to ___________, 20___; a. The Maximum Daily Quantity (“Max DQ”) of the agreement is _______ MMBtu/day at each Qualified CNG Facility; and
b. The delivery points (“Delivery Points”) include the Qualified CNG Facilities.

4. Pipeline quality gas purchased at the Delivery Points noted above is converted at the Qualified CNG Facilities into CNG for use as a transportation fuel.

5. At each of the Qualified CNG Facilities, the volume of biogas withdrawn from the commercial distribution system to produce CNG for use as a transportation fuel is measured by continuous metering, and after such meter, the CNG is used as transportation fuel and for no other purpose.

6. Dispenser has not and will not generate RINs nor represent the fuel for sale as biogas with the ability to generate RINs to any other party.

7. The capacity of the Qualified CNG Facilities to produce and dispense CNG as transportation fuel is greater than ______ MMBtu/day.

DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____________, 20__
By: ______________________________
Name:

Title:

Company:
[See attached notarial certificate]
770
}

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
County of Riverside
On , before me, , Notary Public,
personally appeared ____________________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

SIGNATURE

PLACE NOTARY SEAL ABOVE
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.

Description of attached document
Title or type of document: _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Document Date: Number of Pages:

Signer(s) Other than Named Above:

A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 771

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ________________
COUNTY OF ______________
The undersigned, under penalty of perjury, attests to the following:

I, _________________, currently serve as _____________ of ________________ (“Dispenser”), [name] [title] ]Dispenser] a(n) _____________ _____________, located at ______________________________________. [state incorporated] [entity type] [principal business address] In this capacity I oversee the purchase and transportation of natural gas and biogas for Dispenser; Dispenser took title to biogas as defined in 40 CFR 80.1401 from AmpRenew Offtake I LLC (“Amp”) in the period between ___________________ and ___________________; [quarter begin date] [quarter end date] The biogas described above was dispensed for use as transportation fuel by Dispenser in accordance with the schedule below:

Biogas Activities by Dispenser MMBtu (HHV)
Biogas Purchased from Amp:

Dispensed for Use as Transportation Fuel as
CNG:

DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____________, 20__
By: ______________________________
Name:

Title:

Company:
[See attached notarial certificate]
772
}

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
County of Riverside
On , before me, , Notary Public,
personally appeared ____________________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

SIGNATURE

PLACE NOTARY SEAL ABOVE
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.

Description of attached document
Title or type of document: _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Document Date: Number of Pages:

Signer(s) Other than Named Above:

A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 773
NO. 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO

RNG SUPPLY AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to RNG Supply Agreement (“First Amendment”) is effective as November ___, 2024 (“Effective Date”), by and between AmpRenew Offtake I LLC (“Provider”) and City of Banning (“Dispenser”). Provider and Dispenser are individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Provider and Dispenser are parties to that certain RNG Supply Agreement dated March 15, 2021 (the “Agreement”);
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein or in the Agreement shall have the meaning attributed to the same in the Biogas Regulatory Reform Rule, 40 CFR §80; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement upon the terms and conditions herein set forth.

AMENDMENT AND AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Article 1.1, Definitions. The definition of “Delivery Point” is hereby amended by replacing “14166153” with “16248679.”

2. Article 1.1, Definitions. Article 1.1 is hereby further amended by deleting the definitions of “LCFS Existing Credits” and “LCFS Incremental Credits.”

3. Article 3, Specific Terms of Purchase and Sale. The following shall be added as a new Article 3.0 at the beginning of Article 3:
“The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) set rule for 2023-2025 introduced the Biogas Regulatory Reform Rule (as may be amended from time to time, “BRRR”) for the RFS program (See. 40 CFR §80). The Parties understand, acknowledge and agree that, effective as of November ___, 2024, compliance with BRRR is required for purposes of satisfying the terms and conditions of this Agreement. To that end, the Parties agree to cooperate in good faith to comply with BRRR, including without limitation, taking any and all actions and executing any and all documents necessary to ensure compliance.

For purposes of BRRR:

3.0.1 Provider shall be deemed to be the: (i) Biogas Producer, (ii) RNG Producer, (iii) RNG Marketer, and strictly for regulatory compliance (iv) a Delegated User (as such term is defined by the EPA) of Dispenser. 774

3.0.2 Dispenser shall be deemed to be the RNG RIN Separator.

3.0.3 All references in the Agreement to RINs shall, as context permits, include K2 Credits.

As the Biogas Producer, Provider generates biogas tokens associated with the RNG produced by its supply sources and later retires the biogas tokens. Provider then, as the RNG Producer, converts the biogas tokens to generate RNG RINs. Provider will confirm quantity of RNG that will be used for transportation use for the delivery month. By the twentieth (20th) day of the month following delivery month, Provider, acting as the RNG Marketer, transfers the RNG RINs to Dispenser, who will act as the RNG RIN Separator.

As the RNG RIN Separator, Dispenser is responsible for separating the RNG RINs into K2 Credits and transferring Provider’s share of the K2 Credits to Provider, as outlined in Article 3 of the Agreement, within three (3) business days of receiving the RNG RINs from RNG Marketer.

By the 15th day of the month following the delivery month, RNG RIN Separator shall provide Provider all dispensing information and data required by BRRR, including any changes to Dispenser’s registered dispensing stations, including such as any changes to ownership, meter numbers, station location, or station name. For purposes of this section, “RNG Marketer” means any person allowed to receive, market, and/or transfer RNG RINs under 40 CFR § 80.

Dispenser and Provider are deemed “Associates,” as such term is used for EPA/RFS compliance, and Dispenser hereby appoints and authorizes Provider to act as a Delegated User of Dispenser, including, without limitation, (i) registering to be a Delegated User of Dispenser in OTAQREG (ii) completing all period reporting. Dispenser and Provider agree to work in good faith to maintain EPA/RFS compliance and meet all periodic reporting requirements.”

4. Article 3.7, RIN Allocations between Dispenser and Provider. Article 3.7 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“3.7 RIN Allocations between Dispenser and Provider. Provider or its designated affiliate or upstream supplier shall have the sole right to generate all Green Attributes, including but not limited to RINs and all financial and other benefits associated therewith, for all RNG Delivered to Dispenser. For all RINs generated from RNG Deliveries to Dispenser under this Agreement, Dispenser shall be entitled to receive from Provider six percent (6%) of the OPIS Price for all RINs so generated (“Dispenser’s RIN Share”).

Provider shall pay Dispenser’s RIN Share to Dispenser on a monthly basis within twenty (20) business days of delivery of such RINs into Provider’s EMTS account.”

5. Article 3.8, LCFS Allocations between Dispenser and Provider. Article 3.8 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“3.8 LCFS Allocations between Dispenser and Provider. Provider or its designated affiliate or upstream supplier shall have the sole right to generate all Green Attributes, including but not limited to LCFS Credits and all financial and other benefits associated 775
therewith, for all RNG Delivered to Dispenser. For all LCFS Credits generated from RNG Deliveries to Dispenser under this Agreement, Dispenser shall be entitled to receive from Provider six percent (6%) of the OPIS Price for all LCFS Credits so generated (“Dispenser’s LCFS Share”). Provider shall pay Dispenser’s LCFS Share to Dispenser on a monthly basis within twenty (20) business days of delivery of such LCFS Credits into Provider’s LRT-CBTS account.

6. Article 3.9, LCFS Existing Credits for Dispensed Natural Gas. Article 3.9 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“3.9 Dispenser Incentive Payment. Provider has requested that Dispenser assist in finding additional downstream demand for RNG offtake in California. In the event Provider executes an offtake agreement for RNG offtake in California with a third-party introduced by Dispenser, the percentage of Dispenser’s RIN Share and Dispenser’s LCFS Share shall automatically be amended based on the volume of such executed third-party offtake agreement in accordance with the Incentive Payment Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The execution of any third-party offtake agreement shall be solely at Provider’s discretion and Provider shall have no obligation to execute any offtake agreement with a third-party introduced by Dispenser.”

7. Miscellaneous. This First Amendment and the Agreement contains all of the representations, understandings and agreements of the Parties with respect to matters contained herein. To the extent that the terms and conditions of this First Amendment modify or conflict with any provisions of the Agreement, including prior addenda, schedules and exhibits, the terms of this First Amendment shall control. All other terms of the Agreement, including all prior addenda, schedules and exhibits, not modified by this First Amendment shall remain the same. Each Party represents that the individual executing this First Amendment on behalf of such Party is duly authorized to execute this First Amendment on behalf of such Party as the case may be; that all corporate, partnership, trust or other action necessary for such Party to execute and perform the terms of this First Amendment have been duly taken by such Party; and that no other signature and/or authorization is necessary for such Party to enter into and perform the terms of this First Amendment. The Parties acknowledge the truthfulness of the foregoing Recitals, which are hereby incorporated into this First Amendment. This First Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which counterparts shall constitute an original and all of which counterparts together shall constitute one and the same First Amendment. A copy of a signature shall be deemed an original signature for all purposes.
[Signature Page Follows]
776
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date first written above.
ampRenew Offtake I LLC City of Banning
By: By:

Name: Name:

Title: Title:
777

EXHIBIT B
Incentive Payment Schedule
778

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Brandon Robinson, Electrical Engineering Supervisor Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Accept an Easement from Tri Pointe Homes for Electric Utility Purposes on Accessor’s Tract Map No. 37388-3, within the Atwell Development for the Maintenance of the City-Owned Electric Distribution System RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council accepts an easement from Tri Pointe Homes for electric utility purposes for Tract Map No. 37388-3, Lots 12, 18, and 24 within the Atwell Development for the maintenance of the City-owned electric distribution system.

BACKGROUND:

Final Tract Map No. 37388-3 within the Atwell Development Specific Plan was approved by City Council by Resolution No. 2024-29 on February 27, 2024. Banning Electric Utility has constructed electrical improvements within these tracts that were required to serve the housing development. As part of the Conditions of Approval for the project, the owner is required to provide the City with necessary easements for the maintenance of the City-owned electric distribution system.

This easement will cover electric facilities that were constructed within Planning Area (PA) 15A, Lots 1, 7, 42, 43, 48, 54, 55, 60, and 61 which is included in Tract Map 37388-3. The facilities within the proposed easement consist of primary underground electric infrastructure required for utility service within PA 15A of the Atwell development.

JUSTIFICATION:

It is necessary to obtain the easements for the City to access and provide maintenance for the Cityowned electric distribution equipment which may include utility poles, conduit with conductors, transformers, switchgear, equipment pads, and meters.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the acceptance of the easement.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not accept the easement and provide alternative direction.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
779
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Easement Tract 37388-3, PA 15A-2.pdf

2. Att_1_Certificate_of_Acceptance_-_Easement_for_37388-3__PA_15A-2.pdf 780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
Recording Requested by:

City Clerk
City of Banning
P.O. Box 998
Banning, CA 92220

NO RECORDING FEE PER SECTION
6103 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the EASEMENT – PUBLIC ELECTRIC UTILITY PURPOSES from Tri Pointe Homes IE-SD, Inc., dated 10/24/2024, is hereby accepted by THE CITY OF BANNING pursuant to authority conferred by the City Council this 12th day of November, 2024, and the grantees consent to recordation thereof by its duly authorized agent.

Dated: November 12, 2024

CITY OF BANNING
________________________________
Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
796

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: David Newell, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-183, Making a Determination of Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and Further Making a Determination that the Public Convenience or Necessity Would be Served by the Issuance of Alcoholic Beverage Control License Type 21 (Off-Sale General) for a Market and Deli Located at 263 West Ramsey Street, within the Downtown Commercial Zone and Census Tract 441.01 RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-183.

BACKGROUND:

On July 13, 2022, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a market and deli store selling beer, wine and distilled spirits within an existing building located at 263 W Ramsey Street. Since that time, the City has issued permits to allow improvements and initiate the proposed use.

More recently, the Applicant, Grapevine Liquor, initiated the application process with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for a Type 21 (Off-Sale General - Beer, Wine and Distilled Spirits) liquor license, which allows the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off-site consumption.

The issuance of a liquor license by the ABC is governed by the Business and Professions Code (BPC).

Under BPC Section 23958, the ABC is required to investigate and consider certain matters and deny a license if its issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except as provided in BPC Section 23958.4. BPC Section 23958.4(a)(3) identifies an "undue concentration" exists if the following occurs:

As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located.

Because the subject property is located within a census tract that is identified by the ABC as an area of undue concentration of liquor licenses, the Applicant is requesting that the City Council make a determination that the addition of the new liquor license will serve the public convenience or necessity, as permitted under BPC Section 23958.4(b). The Applicant has provided additional information on page 2 of the attached ABC Form 245. If the Council makes the determination that the public convenience or necessity will be served, then the license may be issued by the ABC.

JUSTIFICATION:
797
The subject site is located within Census Tract number 441.01, which is encompassed by Sunset Avenue to the west, San Gorgonio Avenue to the east, Nicolet Street to the north and Interstate 10 to the south. According to the ABC, one off-sale liquor license is allowed in this census tract based on its population. Currently, there are twelve licenses, including Type 20 (Off-Sale General - Beer and Wine) and Type 21 (Off-Sale General - Beer, Wine and Distilled Spirits), that are active within this Census Tract:

Business Name Address License Type
Chevron/G&M Oil 827 W. Ramsey St. 20
Smart & Final 2971 W. Ramsey St. 21
Rite Aid 806 W. Ramsey St. 21
Shopping Basket 2217 W. Ramsey St. 20
Cheers Liquor & Market 572 W. Ramsey St. 21
Shell 2192 W. Ramsey St. 20
Sunset Liquor 3181 W. Ramsey St. 21
4 Bros Liquor 2185 W. Ramsey St. 21
Dollar General 1323 W. Ramsey St. 20
Banning Liquor 62 N. 8th St. 21
Arco AM/PM 2228 W. Ramsey St. 20
Eddie's Liquor 1449 W. Ramsey St. 21
The ABC can only issue the proposed liquor license if the Council determines that the public convenience or necessity would be served. Hence, the applicant is requesting a determination of public convenience or necessity from the City Council to allow a thirteenth liquor license, which is proposed to take place in conjunction with the operation of the proposed store. The following supports the determination that the proposed license will serve the public convenience or necessity:

The subject site is zoned Downtown Commercial, an area where typically more liquor licenses are concentrated to attract residents and tourists visiting retail, service, and entertainment uses. The proposed business will provide market and deli food, in addition to liquor sales, and increase retail options in the City. Therefore, the use is consistent with the following General Plan policies and programs from Chapter III, Community Development:

Policy 4: Attract a greater number of commercial retail businesses to the Downtown Core area to develop a safe, vital and consumer-friendly downtown shopping area.

Program 4.A: Provisions for the Downtown Commercial Zoning District shall encourage specialty retail uses, live-work uses, and other uses which support and expand the pedestrian and tourist-related shopping experience
The Planning Commission issued a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use on July 13, 2022, which included findings that the use is consistent with criteria in Section 17.52.050 of the Zoning Code (see attached CUP Resolution). The Commission found the use was consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code; the use would not impair the integrity and character of the land use district; the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use being proposed, among other findings necessary for approval of the CUP.

Based on the foregoing, staff has prepared the attached draft resolution for City Council consideration to find that the proposed license will serve the public convenience or necessity.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt the recommended resolution and direct staff to prepare an resolution denying the request. 798
BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-183 - Grapevine Liquor Determination of Necessity or Convenience

2. CUP - PC Resolution No. 2022-10.pdf

3. ABC Form 245.pdf

4. 23958 Investigation denial of application grounds.pdf

5. 239584 Undue concentration licensure for public convenience or necessity definit.pdf 799
Resolution 2024-183

RESOLUTION 2024-183

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 AND

FURTHER MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR

NECESSITY WOULD BE SERVED BY THE ISSUANCE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL) FOR A MARKET AND DELI LOCATED AT 263 WEST RAMSEY STREET, WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE AND CENSUS TRACT 441.01
WHEREAS, Grapevine Liquor (Applicant) has applied for a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits at a market and deli store proposed within an existing building located at 263 West Ramsey Street within Census Tract 441.01; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2022-10 approving a Conditional Use Permit (Case 22-8009) authorizing the sale of beer wine and distilled spirits in conjunction with a market and deli store proposed at 263 West Ramsey Street; and WHEREAS, the ABC has determined that there are twelve existing Off-Sale Licenses within census tract 441.01, while one Off-Sale License would be allowed based on Off-Sale retail licenses to population in the County in which the Applicant’s premise is located; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4(b)(2), the City Council may determine that the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of the requested license.

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

SECTION 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.

Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal.

Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff has considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity in support of a Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license to sell beer, wine, and distilled spirits at a market and deli store proposed within an existing building located at 263 West Ramsey Street within Census Tract 441.01 (the “Project”). City staff has also reviewed the Planning Commission’s prior determination of exemption from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, made on July 13, 2022, for approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 22-8009, authorizing the off-site sales of beer, wine, and distilled spirits (Type 21) for a future market and deli located at 263 West Ramsey Street.

Based on that review, the City of Banning Planning Division has determined that the Project remains categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because the Project continues to consist of the operation, permitting, and licensing or a private structure involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the proposed Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own independent judgment, finds that the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
800
Resolution 2024-183

SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings in support of a determination that the proposed Type 21 (Off-Sale License) will serve the public convenience or necessity at 263 West Ramsey Street:

A. The subject site is zoned Downtown Commercial, an area where typically more liquor licenses are concentrated to attract residents and tourists visiting retail, service and entertainment uses. The proposed business will provide market and deli food, in addition to liquor sales, and increase retail options in the City. Therefore, the use is consistent with the following General Plan policies and programs from Chapter III, Community Development:
(1) Policy 4: Attract a greater number of commercial retail businesses to the Downtown Core area to develop a safe, vital and consumer-friendly downtown shopping area. (2) Program 4.A: Provisions for the Downtown Commercial Zoning District shall encourage specialty retail uses, live-work uses, and other uses which support and expand the pedestrian and tourist-related shopping experience B. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 22-8009 on July 13, 2022, authorizing the off-site sales of beer, wine, and distilled spirits (Type 21) for the proposed market and deli store use located at 263 West Ramsey Street, which included findings that the use is consistent with criteria set forth in Banning Municipal Code Section

17.52.050. Further, the Planning Commission also found the use was consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, the use would not impair the integrity and character of the land use district, and the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use being proposed, among other findings necessary for approval of the CUP.

SECTION 3. Based on the foregoing, the City Council determines that the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license by the ABC to Grapevine Liquor for the market and deli store proposed at 263 West Ramsey Street, Banning, within Census Tract 441.01.

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 12th day of November 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
801
Resolution 2024-183

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
802
Resolution 2024-183

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-183, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of November 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
803
RESOLUTIO,N :2022:-10
A ffi_E.SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CffY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, MAKING A DETERMINATION 0 ,f EXEMPTIONI UNDER CEOA GUIDELINES SEC1iION 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIIES}, AND1 CONSIDERATIION O,F CONDITIONAL USE PEJRMlil' 22-8009 TO AUiTH10'RIZE THE OFF-SrTE SAl.ES O:F BEER, WIJNE, AND DISTILLED SPIRITS (TYPE 21) IFOR A FUTURE MARKET AND DELI LOCATED A.T 263 W. !RAMSEY ST. fAPN: 640-1166-Q(M) 'WHliREA5, an application for Conditional Use P1ermit 22-80091 to allow for the offsite• sate 1of beer. wlne, arrid distilled spirits in 1c:onjunction w[th a permitted~ but ·iuture, market, and deli, mi~ been duly filed by:

F"roject Location: 263 W. Ramsey SL
APN Information; 540-166-004
Projecl Applicant Morada~ LI.C
1131 Santorino Rd.

Ri1vers[de, CA 92508
Property Owner. Morada. LLC
1131 Sanlorino Rei.

Rii\ll@rsld&, CA 92S0B
WHEREAS, ~he Planning Commiss[on is authorized under Chapter 17.44 or the Banni11g Mll.mic:ipall Code (iiBMC1') to approve proposed Conditional Use Permit 22-8009, to add the of offsite sale of beer, wine. and distilled spcrts assodated with a market and deli is currently authorized for 1h~ l
1 ocation under separate: permit. Mo~e
specifically, tl1@ Project· is located at 263
W. Ramsey St. (APN: 540-166-004) at the northeasterly comer of Wes1 !Ramsey .St. and Third St., in Ule Downto,wn Commercial Dfstnict (the "'Projecr); and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2022 ·the City gave public notice by advertaitng fn the Record Gazette, a 11ewspaper of general! c:in::u!alion within the City of Banning, and by mailing n1otilces to1 property owners wilhln 300-feel of the Pmlec:1, of the holding of a public heari ng1 at which tile Project wou1d be considered; and WHEREAS, 011 July 13, 2022, the Pkt nn ing Commission held the noticed public hear I ng1 at wh lch interested persons had an 1opportunity to testify in support of, en opPQsition to. proposed Condi~Jonal Use Permit 2:29 8009.

NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Banning does hereby find and dete:rmine as follows:

SEctLON 1 i C,al!ifoinia Eni1Ji1ronmantaL'.Qualp_Ac;t· a,qd IMu lfip1a Species l;labitat CDoaeJYatian, e1am1 find ioss.

CE:OA. Planning Div[Sion smff has delermrned thait the Project is categorically e'X:emp1 from ·the requirements of lhe Calffom~a IEnvi ronmen1a I QuaUly Act ("C EQA 0) (Cal, Pub. RtrS. Code,§ 211000 et seg~) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the 0GurdeJinesh) 804
(14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 el seq.). The Project quaNfies under the -Class 1 categorical ,exempt.ion set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, lioansing, or minor altera1ion of existi!'lg private s1rocuue, fnvo1ving negljgibfe or no expansion of exiisting or former use. The Project is consistent with type· of ·existmng taciliJties" itemized as subseciion (a),, of Sectfon 15301, which involves alteralliorn to lhe rnteriorofthefacllity, including such things as interior pa11:ltions, plumbing. and electncal conveyances.

B_ Muttiple Species Habitat Conservation IPJ:an (MSHCP). The project is located outside of any MS HCP crtteria oe11 areas and plan compliance is provided lhrough payment of a MSHCP Mitigation Fee al the time· of building [Permit issuance.

SfiCXION,3,~EQUJR&D FIIYQJNGS;,_C.QNDIJJO.NAL USE eE1BMIT 224HKl9 Seotlon 17 .52.050 of the City of Banning Zoning: Ordinance requires that Conditional Use Permit applicati0ns nieel certain findings prior to the approval by the Plam1ing Commrs.s1on. The fo!lowing findings are provided in support of the a~proval of Cond1~1onal Use Permit 22-8009;
FiIndi 11g 1 ~ The pro;posed use is consistent with the Genera, Plan; Fhuliag of Fact: Proposed Conditional, Use Permit 22-8009 is oonsistent wilh the General' Plan La11d Use Element Policy, which states: The landus.9 map shaU provide for sufficient ~ands to, provide a large range of products and services to the City arnd the region wMle carefully considering oornpatlbility wilh adjacent residential lands." The sub.Jecl. property is, designal:e(j Downtown Commercial on the General Pl'an land use map. The proposed use is, consistent with the Downtown Commerclal land-use designation_ Sman scale· commerciaJ retail and office uses, services, r-estauranfs, entertainment retail are the primary uses in this designation. A comer market is highly consistent wilh the comprehensive theme of the Downtown Commeroia'I Dis,trJct. Further, Cond[tfonal Use Permit 22-8009 js consJslent with General Pl'an Economic Development Po1icy, which slates: .. The City shafl take a pro.active role ,in the retention of existing businesses and the recru llment of new businesses, particuiarly lhos.e that generate and broaden employment Qpportunntes, increase discretionary incomes, and oon~rib1.Jte to City Genera~ Fund revenues."' Approval of proposed Conditional Use Petmit 22-8009 would allow the app1icantto promote, business dive,srty, while provfding an economic benefit to tile City.

Fi'nding 2: 1'he proposed use FS conditionally permrtted wtthin the subject land use district amd complies wilh .all olher applicable pr-ovlsrons of Tttle 17 of the Banning Municipal Code.

Finding of Fact The pro,posed offsite sale· of beer. wine, and distill'ed spirts is conditionally permitted in tile !Downtown Commercial zoning dist(lOt. The profeot meets arexceeds all minJmum develqpment standards provided in Table 17.12.030 ("Commercial and
Industrial Oeve!oprnen-t Standar:ds1 of Chapter 17.12 of7iltle 17 805
of the BMC. Further, the Project a food- related use, which is consistent with all other applicable provisions of Tltle 17 of the BMC.

Finding 3: The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the land use district in which it is to be located.

Finding of Fact: The proposed use would be located on West Ramsey Street and Third Street, which is an intersection within the City's downtown area.

Finding 4: The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use being proposed.

Finding of Fact: The Project is within an existing commercial building, The site is located in an area surrounded by general commercial uses, furthermore, the site will have adequate par1<ing, landscaping, lighting, and security.

Finding 5: There are adequate provisions for water. sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.

Finding of Fact: The subject site is served by the public and private utilities, including the City's water. sewer. and electrical utilities. The subject site has access and is served from West Ramsey Street, and Third Street, which is an existing developed roadway with existing utilities.

Finding 6: There will not be significant harmful effects upon environmental quality; natural resources; or neighborhood characteristics.

Finding of Fact: The Project is not located within a Compatibility Zone as identified by the CLUP, as approved by the Riverside Airport land Use Commission. The facility will not intertere with the Banning Municipal Airport operation. The facility will not create significant harmful effects to the environment, natural resources, or neighborhood characteristics.

Finding 7: The proposed location. size, design. and operating characteristics of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interests, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

Finding of Fact: The proposed location. design, and operating characteristics of the proposed market and deli will not be detrimental to the public interests, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City and will complement adjacent businesses.
806
SECTION 4: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION;
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission of the City of Banning hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 22-8009, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval attached hereto. as "Exhibtt A".

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13"' day of July 2022.

APPROVED AS TO

FORM AND LEGAL
CONTENT:

Serita R. You , Assistant Cily Attorney
Ricflards, Walson & Gershon
ATTEST:
~.~OtV
Sandra Calderon, Recording
Secretary City of Banning, California
Scott Brosious. Chairman
Banning Planning Commission
807
CERTJflCATJON;
I, Sandra Calderon, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022-10, was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Banning, Califomia, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13'" day of July 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Brosious, Krick, Shaw
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Figueroa
RECUSE: Lopez
Sandra Calderon, Recording Secretary
City of Banning, California
808
City of Banning
Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit 22-8009
SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval (Planning Commission Resolution 2022-10) APPLICANT: Morada, LLC
LOCATION: 263 W. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA92220 (APN's 540-166-004)

EXHIBIT A
To Planning Commission Resolution 2022-10
• AH fair share agreements, covenant agreements and agreements subject to recordation will be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and will include appropriate enforcement provisions by the City and be properly securltlzed.

Community Development Department (General Conditions)
The following conditions shall be considered General Conditions and reflect standard code compliance measures applicable to most occupancy types and commercial bulldings within the City of Banning. (NOTE: Conditions shall not be Implemented unless directed by the Banning Fire Marshal, Building Official, and/or Community Development Olrector):

1. The Project is permitted under Conditional Use Permit 22-8009 ("Projecr) shall alWays comply with all federal, state, County and City laws, codes, regulations, and standards. including those that relate to hazardous materials.

2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents. departments. agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"). brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers. employees, agents. departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack. or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul. the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the Clly and/or any of its officials. officers. employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the Project. whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental 809
Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that applicant shall reimburse Cily for any cosls and expenses direclly and necessarily Incurred by lhe Cily in the course of the defense. City shall promplly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action.

3. Approval of this entillement shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC), other applicable City ordinances, in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

4. A copy of the signed Resolution of approval and these conditions of approval imposed on CUP 22-8009 shall be reproduced in legible form on the improvement plans submitted for review and approval as required by the reviewing department.

5. Exterior lighting shall be shielded or recessed so that light is contained within the boundaries of the Project parcel on which the lighting is localed. All lighting shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public righls-of-way.

6. The Project shall provide anti-graffiti coating on all walls around the perimeter of the project site and all walls shall match in color, texture, and design, All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours.

7. Existing parking stalls shall be retained to ensure adequate pai1<.ing.

8. The landscape plan shall demonstrate compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements related to minimum dimensions and percentages of landscaping in parking areas, including required front yard setback landscaping.

9. The Project proposes the off-site sale of Beer, Wine. and Distilled Spirits (Type 21) in conjunction with a market and deli, currently authorized for this location under separate permit.

All required licensing (i.e .. Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC), Environmental Health, etc.) shall always be maintained in good order. Lapse or revocation of any required license shall result in the voiding of the CUP 22-8009 approval.

10. The subject property shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the site plans stamped approved by the City and on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the applicable regulations within the BMC.

Building Peoartment:

The fol/owing conditions shall be considered General Conditions and reflect standard code compliance measures applicable to most occupancy types and commercial buildings within the City of Banning. (NOTE: CondlUons shall not be implemented unless directed by the Banning Fire Marshal, Building Official, and/or Community Development Director):
810

11.AII structures shall be designed in accordance with the current version of the California Building Codes, including the California Green Building Standards Code. Design all structures to comply with Seismic Design Category D, basic wind speed should be site specific and determined from ATC at www.atcouncil.org/windspeed with exposure type ·c·. and Energy Calculations shall be designed per Climate Zone 10,

12. Banning Electric does not release electric meters until final approvals are obtained from all agencies and departments.

13. Construction projects. requiring temporary electrical power, shall obtain an electrical permit from Banning Electric.
14, Identify if a new gas meter service is to be installed or connection to the existing service meter.

15. Construction projects requiring fire permits must apply and submit fire plans prior to the issuance of the building permit, including fire sprinkler submittals.

16. The Developer/Owner is responsible for the coordination of releasing any Deferral of Development Impact Fees or Bonds after such fees have been paid. The Developer/Owner should be aware, once the deferral notice is sent to the Riverside County Recorder's Office: the release process takes two to three weeks. This process will delay final Certificates of Occupancy,

17. The Developer/Owner is responsible for the coordination of the final occupancy. The Developer/Owner shall request clearances from each department and/or agency at least two weeks prior to requesting a final building inspection from Building and Safety. Each agency may sign the Building and Safety Job Card, or provide agency approved signed documentation, and provide a copy of the signatures to Building and Safety at the time the final inspection is requested.

18.All construction materials, which are not used, shall be recycled pursuant to the requirements per the California Green Building Standards Code. Receipts from the recycle company responsible for picking up the materials shall be kept in the construclion office. After the construction is complete and before final occupancy, all trash receipts shall be forwarded to the City.

19. The Applicant shall maintain the onsite water service, coordinate installation, and achieve approval by the responsible agency/agencies. On site fire hydrants shall be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department.

20. No flammable materials will be allowed on the site until the fire hydrants are established and approved. No flammable construction materials shall be placed on the site without approvals by the Fire Department. All street and access roadways around the project shall be paved for emergency response vehicles before flammable materials are placed on the project. 21 .AII construction projects shall comply with the NPOES Stormwater Best Management Program.

Prior to building penmit issuance submit copy of the Water Quality Management Program Report. 811

22.AII deferred plan items are lo be identified on the cover sheet of lhe drawing plans.

23. The structure's sewer is to be connected to the public sewer system when provided. When the public system is not available, an onsite septic system is to be installed. Obtain a septic system handout at the permit counter for requirement information. Percolation test is required with report provided at time of septic system application.

24. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access lo all entrances and e>cterior ground Hoor exits and access to normal paths of travel. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route.

25. The City enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards may differ in some cases from the California Slate requirements: therefore, it is the building owner's responsibility lo be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.

26. Building and Safety inspection requests must be made by 4:00 pm. on the previous City working day to receive a ne>ct day inspection. Please contact (951) 922-4820

27.Plan review application approval is valid for a period of 180 days after application date (plan check submittal date) If the permit is not obtained within that time period the approval expires and becomes null and void. The Building Official may e>ctend the time for action by the applicant for a period of 90 days upon written request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. In order to renew action on an application after expiration the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee.

Bannina Electric Utility (BEU):

28. The developer/applicant will be responsible for dedicating an easement for areas of onsite electric utility infrastructure.

29. The developer will be responsible for all costs of onsile/offsile electric utility infrastructure needed to supply power to this project.

30. The developer is responsible for cost associated with any relocations of utility poles or supporting apparatus due to street improvements, grading or lot line adjustments that might be required. 31 . Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or public works permit by the City. the Applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies.

Permits will not be unreasonably withheld if the developer has met all typical standards for a permit and satisfied all relevant conditions of approval for the appropriate permit:
• City of Banning Fire Marshall
• City of Banning Police Department
• City of Banning Community Development Department
• Cijy of Banning Public Works Department
• City of Banning Water/Wastewater Department
812
• City of Banning Electric Department
• Califomla Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin • South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission

32. The applicant is responsible for meeting an requirements of permits andlor dearances from the agencies from the non-inclusive list above. When the requirements include approval of approved plans, the applicant shall fumish such proof of approvals when submitting improvement plans to the City. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures and submit copies of all correspondence with the agencies to the Engineering Division.

33.AII required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer, Registered Professional Geologist. Registered Professional Landscape Architect or Registered Professional Surveyor in the State of Califomia and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.

34. The design of public infrastructure elements shall conform to the requirements of these Conditions of Approval, City General Plan, City/Regional Master Plans. City of Banning Grading Manual, City of Banning codes/standards, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (current edition), and Caltrans Standards and Specifications at no cost to any governmental agency as required by the City Engineer.

35. The design of private grading and improvements outside of public right of way shall comply with the City of Banning Grading Manual, Title 18 of the City of Banning Municipal Code, California Building Code, State Water Resources Control Board orders, rules, and regulations, and City of Banning standards and practices.

36. The following is a non-inclusive list of items that may be required by the Public Works Department. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City Engineer, plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified and shall be drawn on 24"x36" Mylar film. Plans should be drawn at a larger scale if additional detail and/or clarity is desired (Note: The applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvement required by other agencies and utility purveyors):
~
'II. . ,_.. lll
' "' Precise Grading Plan 1 "=20' Horizontal
Retaining Wall Plan 1"=40' Horizontal
Haul Route Plan 1 "=40' Horizontal
Clearing Plan 1"=40' Horizon1a1
Demolition Plan 1 "=40' Horizontal
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 1 "=40' Horizontal
Street Improvement Plans 1•=40 Horizontal and 1"=4' Vert 813
Traffic Signing and Striping Plan
Traffic Control P1an
1"=40 Horizontal
1 "=40' Horizontal

37. 0ther engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed herein shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparalion.

38.AII off-.site plan and profile, street improvement plans. and signing and striping plans shall show all existing improvements for a minimum distance of 200-feet beyond the project limits. and to a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.

39.An index map shall be provided on the title sheet of all plan sets showing the overall view of the entire worl< area.

40. If applicable, the Applicant shall submit a construction access ptan and schedule for the development of all facilities for Community Development Director and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns. hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.

41. The applicant is responsible for resolving any conflicts with existing or proposed easements. All easement(s) of record and proposed easements shall be shown on the final map, grading plan. and improvement plans where applicable.

42. Where survey monuments exist. such monuments shall be protected or shall be referenced and reset, pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, Sections 8700 to 8805 (Land Surveyors Act).

43.AII future utility systems including gas, electric, telephone. water. sewer, and cable TV, shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired.

44.Any existing public improvements, or public improvements not accepted by the City that are damaged during construction shall be removed and replaced as determined by the City Engineer or his/her representative.

45.AII precautions shall be taken to prevent washouts, undermining and subsurface ponding, caused by rain or runoff to all surface structures (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paving, etc.). The Engineering Division may order repair. removal and replacement. extra compaction tests. load tests. etc. or any combination thereof for any such structure that was damaged or appears 10 have been damaged. All of the additional work. testing, etc .. shall be at the expense of the Applicant.

46. Prior to the release of surety and upon completion of construction. the Applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings on Mylar film of all improvement plans that were approved by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "As-Built" or "As-Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying the accuracy and 814
completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD files submitted to the City, revised to reflect the "As•Built" conditions. The Applicant shall be responsible for research on private utility lines (Gas, Edison, Telephone, Cable, Internet, etc.) to ensure there are no conflicts with site development. All existing on-site utility lines that conflict with this project shall be relocated, removed, or sealed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

47. The applicant shall verify and/or set all property comers, rlw corners, and centerline monuments.

Subsequently, the applicant shall cause the surveyor to file the appropriate documents and records to the County of Riverside.

48. No water quality devices, structures, or BMPs are permitted within the ultimate right of way

49. In accordance with the California Building Code, Title 24, and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), facilities for disabled persons shall be constructed in locations specified by the City Engineer (i.e., accessible paths of travel, curb ramps, etc.).

50.AII streets shall have a maximum grade of 15 percent. Wherever feasible street grades should be kept to 10 percent or less.

51.Aocess drives to the public right-of-way shall be restricted to those approved by the City Engineer as shown on the approved plans.

52. Commercial/Industrial driveway grades shall not exceed eight percent unless approved by the City Engineer.

53. Development Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time that the fees are paid.

54. Public Works Inspection fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permits in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of scheduling.

Eire Deoartmeot
The following conditions shall be considered General Conditions and reflect standard code compliance measures applicable to most occupancy types and commercial buildings within the City of Banning. (NOTE: Conditions shall not be implemented unless directed by the Banning Fire Marshal under a specific or routine inspection):

55. Fire Hydrants and Fire Flow: Prior lo the issuance of building permits, plans for the water system shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval. The water system shall be capable of delivering the required fire flow. Fire hydrant(s) location and spacing shall comply with the fire code. An approved water supply for fire protection during construction shall be made available prior to the arrival of combustible materials on site. [Reference 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) 507.5.1, 3312, Appendices Band CJ

56.Aocess for Fire Department: Access roads shall be retained to within 150 feet to all portions of the exterior building walls and shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Access roads shall be all weather and capable of sustaining 40,000 lbs. over two axles for areas of 815
residential development and 60,000 lbs. over two axels for commercial developments.

Approved vehicle access, either permanent or temporary, shall be provided during construction. (Ref. CFC 503.1.1, 3310.1 and 503.2.1]

57. Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/devices on fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted and approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. (Ref. CFC 503.4.1)

58. Construction Permits Fire Department Review: Submittal of any future tenant improvement plans/construction plans shall require review by the Office of the Fire Marshal for development, construction, installation, and operational use permitting. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Office of the Fire Marshal reviews these plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, Califomia Building Code (CBC). California Fire Code, and related codes, which are In effect at the time of building plan submittal.

59. Fire Sprinkler System: All new commercial structures 3,600 square feet or larger shall be protected with a fire sprinkler system. Ref CFC 903.2 as amended by the City of Banning, The requirement for a Fire Sprinkler System also includes canopies over 3,600 square feet or larger or a combination of new building area and canopy area that equal or exceeds 3,600 square feet.

60. Fire Alarm and Detection System: A water now monitoring system and/or fire alarm system may be required and determined at time of building plan review. Ref. CFC 903.4, CFC 907.2 and NFPA 72.

61. Knox Box and Gate Access: New and substantially renovated Buildings shall be provided with a Knox Box. The Knox Box shall be installed in an accessible location approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. All electronically operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic sensors for access. Ref. CFC 506.1 (NOTE: "Substantially renovated" shall be determined - at their sole discretion - by the City of Banning Building Official and Office of the Fire Marshal),

62.Addressing: All commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side and additional locations as required. Ref. CFC 505.1 and County of Riverside Office of the Fire Marshal Standard #07-01
• Deferred Submittals (as applicable to Business License requirements):
• Fire Suppression Systems
• Fire Alarm System

63. Newly constructed, or substantially renovated, outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing. (NOTE: "Substantially renovated" shall be determined - at their sole discretion - by the City of Banning Building Official and Office of the Fire Marshal). 816

CITY OF BANNING
• .. .. "' ...

PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 22-8009

AERIAL BASE MAP
AOORESS/APN: 263 w. Ramsey St./S40-166-004
ZONE: Downtown Commercial (DC)
- A. ~• ,W'I"- It 3 y.,

UNION PAC/FIS RAILROAD
817

CITY OF BANNING
•
------
n • -
. .
~F I
"'
.. .,
i!'
~
'
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 22-8009

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
ADDRESS/ APN: 263 W. Ramsey St./540-166-004
ZONE: Downtown Commercial {DC)
...:j
_..
r
f
t

WILLIAMS ST
J.___,_.
. ... "' 0
l!,
~ (/)
j ~
1 ~ _1
~ ~ ..
hi~ il
!
, -- ·----· - --F.IAMSEiY. S.T- ~- - ~--- ----- ·-.

Legend
r----i"I camomla Geological Survey
~ liquefaction Hazard Zone
-
FEMA 1% (100-Year)Annual
Chance Flood Hazard
FEMA 0.2% (500-Yeor) Annual
Chance Flood ~zard
--USGS Blue Line Streams
r
-
No wostom Rivo,side C<>utily MultipJe Spoc1os f
Habitat ConservaUon Plan (MSHCP) Criteria
Cells wl1hin t mile of the project 1oca1lon.

No ClJIFlre Fire Hazard Severlly Zones within
1 mJle of the project location.

No C.slifornia Department of Conservab'on
EarthQuak.e Fault Zones within 314 mile of
the project location.
:J(
'
---- --
UNION PACJF!C RAIL AD
l
.....j
-
lU
'o
'(!)
'Q,
0 :(!)
ice
,,:
, _ L
l
""-'-~ LIV/t,IG_STON SJ' .... _
818
I 51~ N
13 ml~!:! ~
;i ~
J.AC/HTO VIEW RO-
~~ 5 il1~1~

CITY OF BANNING
347
331
582
"lO
348
385
381
345
328 331
311 314 ..... 313 314
299 298 297 ..._ __. 286
283 (I) 282 279 -~
289 :o I 266 j 2ss7 .; 8 'O _.>() ?OU ~
247 24◄ 249 ~
233 I 23C (") ... 240
-~~627- 561 1 ;&j wi ~
313
283
271
247
217
r
378 324 384 ! 381
::!'t % 3 388 343
348 345
,-2-3.L ~ 327 328 329
312 313
~ 290
... 292 ... ... ., 277 280 ., .,
I!; 288 287 ~
~ • . ~ 200 251
- ~ 234 233
52 M
N
218 215 ._.___.____,833 I
1 WILLIAMS ST
'
,e N !It s, N 820 'lo o olo <:, o ~ 454 181
, l6 , :l!J'° '° ;i 163 ,
1 :s io :s:;:. .i "'~ !!; ., I~ fZ 155
_ 'l7 m 37 f... 142 :s --
.. m1si ~ ,.. "' : I :~ 102 r.;;;;-i :;; __ I~ -- ~ 111 ., 0 ~ ., 720
- ~
158 157
140 •
122 ,0 131
• 108 113
182
~ ; :f ~1 fii77 182 153 162 1 7
150 !''!.~ t,K;t-PROJE<:T
132 127 i...E3 ~ LOt AT(ON 12
1 5
116 115 109 • l1 1
: ,;s
827
90 ... 88 238
$ !'l - ~
lli M 161 ~ M l'l ~
ii! ii! ' i:: .. YST
] '
906 j L n•
lo ~l 0 0
~ .... ... ~
~ ,I; ,, ,, - N .... .. ...
57- 60 53 "' 0 I 55 - 69 271 85 ~ __LJ 70
7 UNION PACIFIC RAILRO D
T
l
r
200 849 849 161
50 ~
235
221
381 384
368
349 350
334
333 318
299 292
245 200
235 230
225 220
:s ~ 381
-- ' ~
359
361
331 ~ 380
1e • 0 M
- 321 ~w
311 312 0:
~ lE 2ll6 m
fil 276
247 ~ 258
~
M
-
~ 171
149 144 141
176
•
I :

SB
52 I 125
94 ,..._
50 ~
25 216 ~
~~ 70 t-~J,
- ,..- '
12 ;
ill
150
L/VINGSTON·S,T, __ _

BRYANT ST
251
819

CITY OF BANNING
' "'1ediam Density ,
Re:sidential '
(0-10 du/ac) .,,_
~ l::• """""""''
Hi9chwJi T'
ServingCL.J
·ommerCial
0 10020)31)(1.:,)
,_
w w,~ 1::::--
I
----------------•- ----
Madium Density
Residential
(0· 10 du/ac)
Moli1le
Home
,~~•P_,arks
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 22-8009

GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING
ADDRESS/APN: 263 w. Ramsey St./540-166-004
ZONE: Downtown Commercial {DC)
' - ~ .Jlf€eil!E~ - ,
' ' t ' • Downtown €omme,c,al
' ' '
' t I- .. - - .. - - - - ,_ - - - - - t
Public Facilities
• School
-- - --
'
>-,
"' ...
f;'.1
C 00
' . Public Facilities
Low-~
Density
Residential
• (015
du/~c) J
~
• Govern/nent "\
I >,
,-----..J>.••------~---~~
1 ~-------- ------- ------- ---
- • 'L
• - - RAMSfi,YJS1'
'
' ., - - - -. -- - --- -- ~----------;-- - ----' ----- - -- --- General
Commercial Industrial ommercial Industrial
t
I
820
821
822
§ 23958. Investigation; denial of application; grounds, CA BUS & PROF § 23958 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West's Annotated California Codes
Business and Professions Code (Refs & Annos)
Division 9. Alcoholic Beverages (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 6. Issuance and Transfer of Licenses (Refs & Annos) Article 1. Applications for Licenses (Refs & Annos)
West's Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 23958
§ 23958. Investigation; denial of application; grounds
Currentness
Upon receipt of an application for a license or for a transfer of a license and the applicable fee, the department shall make a thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant and the premises for which a license is applied qualify for a license and whether the provisions of this division have been complied with, and shall investigate all matters connected therewith which may affect the public welfare and morals. The department shall deny an application for a license or for a transfer of a license if either the applicant or the premises for which a license is applied do not qualify for a license under this division.

The department further shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except as provided in Section 23958.4.

Credits
(Added by Stats.1980, c. 1194, p. 4033, § 2, operative Jan. 1, 1983. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 1189, p. 4244, § 2, operative Jan. 1, 1984; Stats.1994, c. 630 (A.B.2897), § 1.) West's Ann. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23958, CA BUS & PROF § 23958 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 1002 of 2024 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 823
§ 23958.4. Undue concentration; licensure for public..., CA BUS & PROF §... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West's Annotated California Codes
Business and Professions Code (Refs & Annos)
Division 9. Alcoholic Beverages (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 6. Issuance and Transfer of Licenses (Refs & Annos) Article 1. Applications for Licenses (Refs & Annos)
West's Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 23958.4
§ 23958.4. Undue concentration; licensure for public convenience or necessity; definitions; exclusions; Los Angeles premises destroyed by civil disturbances Effective: June 27, 2019
Currentness
(a) For purposes of Section 23958, “undue concentration” means the case in which the applicant premises for an original or premises-to-premises transfer of any retail license are located in an area where any of the following conditions exist:
(1) The applicant premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimes, as defined in subdivision (c), than the average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency. (2) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. (3) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. (b) Notwithstanding Section 23958, the department may issue a license as follows:
(1) With respect to a nonretail license, a retail on-sale bona fide eating place license, a retail license issued for a hotel, motel, or other lodging establishment, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 25503.16, a retail license issued in conjunction with a beer manufacturer's license, or a winegrower's license, if the applicant shows that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. (2) With respect to any other license, if the local governing body of the area in which the applicant premises are located, or its designated subordinate officer or body, determines within 90 days of notification of a completed application that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. The 90-day period shall commence upon receipt by the local governing body of (A) notification by the department of an application for licensure, or (B) a completed application according to local requirements, if any, whichever is later. 824
§ 23958.4. Undue concentration; licensure for public..., CA BUS & PROF §... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 If the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body, does not make a determination within the 90-day period, then the department may issue a license if the applicant shows the department that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. In making its determination, the department shall not attribute any weight to the failure of the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body, to make a determination regarding public convenience or necessity within the 90-day period. (c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Reporting districts” means geographical areas within the boundaries of a single governmental entity (city or the unincorporated area of a county) that are identified by the local law enforcement agency in the compilation and maintenance of statistical information on reported crimes and arrests. (2) “Reported crimes” means the most recent yearly compilation by the local law enforcement agency of reported offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft, and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors, except traffic citations. (3) “Population within the census tract or census division” means the population as determined by the most recent United States decennial or special census. The population determination shall not operate to prevent an applicant from establishing that an increase of resident population has occurred within the census tract or census division. (4) “Population in the county” shall be determined by the annual population estimate for California counties published by the Demographic Research Unit of the Department of Finance. (5) “Retail licenses” shall include the following:
(A) Off-sale retail licenses: Type 20 (off-sale beer and wine) and Type 21 (off-sale general). (B) On-sale retail licenses: All retail on-sale licenses, except Type 43 (on-sale beer and wine for train), Type 44 (on-sale beer and wine for fishing party boat), Type 45 (on-sale beer and wine for boat), Type 46 (on-sale beer and wine for airplane), Type 53 (on-sale general for train and sleeping car), Type 54 (on-sale general for boat), Type 55 (on-sale general for airplane), Type 56 (on-sale general for vessels of more than 1,000 tons burden), and Type 62 (on-sale general bona fide public eating place intermittent dockside license for vessels of more than 15,000 tons displacement).
(6) A “premises-to-premises transfer” refers to each license being separate and distinct, and transferable upon approval of the department.
(d) For purposes of this section, the number of retail licenses in the county shall be established by the department on an annual basis.
825
§ 23958.4. Undue concentration; licensure for public..., CA BUS & PROF §... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 (e) The enactment of this section shall not affect any existing rights of any holder of a retail license issued before April 29, 1992, whose premises were destroyed or rendered unusable as a result of the civil disturbances occurring in Los Angeles from April 29 to May 2, 1992, to reopen and operate those licensed premises. (f) This section shall not apply if the premises have been licensed and operated with the same type license within 90 days of the application.

Credits
(Added by Stats.1994, c. 630 (A.B.2897), § 2. Amended by Stats.1995, c. 91 (S.B.975), § 12; Stats.1996, c. 811 (A.B.2218), § 1; Stats.1996, c. 869 (A.B.2841), § 2; Stats.2012, c. 327 (S.B.937), § 9; Stats.2013, c. 76 (A.B.383), § 6; Stats.2019, c. 29 (S.B.82), § 46, eff. June 27, 2019.) West's Ann. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23958.4, CA BUS & PROF § 23958.4 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 1002 of 2024 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 826

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Update on the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project and Consideration of Resolution 2024-184, Approving EA 24-0051, An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-184.

BACKGROUND:

The proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project (“SLB Extension Project”) is identified on the Council approved Capital Improvement Program and, once constructed, would complete a gap in the roadway and circulation network along Sun Lakes Boulevard between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. This unfinished portion of Sun Lakes Boulevard has been identified on the City's circulation element dating back to at least 1994. This staff report (1) provides an update to City Council on the progress of the SLB Extension Project including a summary of important and necessary steps to continue to move the SLB Extension Project to the construction phase, and (2) discusses the Final Initial Study ("IS"), Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") prepared for the SLB Extension Project, which staff is recommending the Council's adoption of.

SLB Extension Project Initiation
The SLB Extension Project has been a vision for the City since the construction of the Sun Lakes Country Club starting in the mid 1980's to provide an important secondary access point from the Sun Lakes County Club community to Sunset Avenue, relieving pressure of Highland Springs Avenue. Initial steps were taken with a Right of Way dedication to the City of Banning on Parcel Map 25541 in February of 1990. In 2020, the City Council revived efforts to complete the SLB Extension Project with the following actions:

Resolution 2020-21 (adopted on 2/11/20): Accepting the lots dedicated to the City on Parcel Map 25541;
Resolution 2020-48 (adopted on 4/14/20): Awarding a Professional Services Agreement for the design of the SLB Extension Project to Albert A Webb Associates; and Resolution 2020-97 (adopted on 7/14/20): Approving A TUMF Reimbursement Agreement with the Western Riverside Council Of Governments for $1,000,000 in TUMF funds City expenditures related to the SLB Extension Project.
827
The City Council's adoption of the resolutions listed above in 2020 started the City's efforts to design the proposed SLB Extension Project and, once designed, prepare the environmental review documents for the SLB Extension Project based on the project scope identified in the design documents.

SLB Extension Project Status
In the time since the initiation of the design contract in 2020, City staff and the City's consultant, Albert A. Webb Associated, have engaged continuously to get the SLB Extension Project to an environmentally cleared and shovel ready condition. A redesign effort was necessitated when comments were received from (1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), (2) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), and (3) utility holders within the existing utility corridor. These comments required the City to revise the initial project design and negotiate with the stakeholders mentioned above on an acceptable design solution. Once those efforts were completed, City staff and the City's Consultant revised the necessary studies, reports, and plans.

On September 5, 2024, the City received notice from the USFWS and the CDFW of clearance of the SLB Extension Project's Determination of Biologically Equivalent of Superior Preservation (DBESP), which documents the SLB Extension Project's consistency with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), allowing the City to circulate the SLB Extension Project's IS/MND for public review and comment, thereby completing a significant hurdle in getting the SLB Extension Project shovel ready.

The construction plans are now 100%, and bid documents are being prepared in order to issue a Notice Inviting Bids. There are three (3) private utilities that have easements in the corridor that are still in process:

Williams Pipeline - The City has received a Letter of Non Interference from this entity and they will allow the Project to proceed with the roadwork in compliance with their encroachment permit conditions.

Lumen - The City has met with the easement holder and provided necessary information to initiate the encroachment permit process. Initial responses have been received that would require the City to show that the pipeline can be protected in place to continue forward.

Kinder Morgan - On October 24th, 2024, the City Council approved a Reimbursement Agreement with SFPP, L.P., (Resolution 2024-170) the successor in interest to Kinder Morgan for costs associated with the design and relocation of pipeline facilities owned and operated by SFPP, L.P., in related to the SLB Extension Project. Staff is processing the necessary paperwork to advance this item.

Environmental Review of the SLB Extension Project (IS/MND) The City, as lead agency for the SLB Extension Project, prepared an Initial Study for the SLB Extension Project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on the findings of the IS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) was prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, the City’s consultant, pursuant to the scope of services of the Professional Services Agreement awarded by the City Council by adoption of Resolution 2020-48. The IS/MND concludes that the Project, with proposed mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment. The mitigation measures within the MMRP conclude that the proposed Project will have a less than significant effect on the environment with their implementation.

The IS/MND, Technical Appendices for the IS/MND, MMRP, and the Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND ("NOI") were published on the City of Banning website (https://www.banningca.gov/928/SunLakes-Blvd-Extension) under the Public Works Department/Engineering Division page on September 6, 2024 and published to the State Clearinghouse on the State of California's CEQAnet website (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024090237/2) on September 9, 2024. The IS, MND, and MMRP were also made available for public review and inspection at City Hall and the Banning Public Library. The NOI was also sent to interested parties, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Riverside County Clerk828 Recorded pursuant to section 15703 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A total of 31 notices were mailed via FedEx and U.S. Postal Service. The 30-day public review and comment period concluded at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 8, 2024.

The City of Banning received timely comments from 1 public agency and 1 private citizen during the public review period and one late comment after the public review period ended. All three comment letters were reviewed and addressed in the "Response to Comments" section of the Final Draft IS/MND included with this document. Copies of the comment letters received are also included as part of the Final Draft IS/MND. Based on review of the comments received and clarification and amplification of the analysis in the IS/MND, no new, unavoidable significant environmental effects were identified and therefore, pursuant to Section 15703.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the environmental documents for this Project is not required.

The IS identifies the SLB Extension Project's environmental effects by use of an Environmental Factors Checklist, with a brief explanation or reference to indicate the evidence supporting the checklist entries (such as the certified EIR for the General Plan or the technical studies completed for the SLB Extension Project). The Checklist contains a list of questions about potential environmental effects organized by subject area. Each question asks whether a particular effect would result from the SMB Extension Project and is answered by checking a box for "potentially significant impact," "less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated," "less than significant impact," and "no impact." If one or more answers are "less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated" and all other answers are "no impact" or "less than significant impact" and the necessary mitigation measures are incorporated into a project, then an MND should be prepared. There were no answers found in the IS conducted for the SLB Extension Project to have "potentially significant effects." One or more answers were "no impact," "less than significant impact," and "less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated." Answers indicating "less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated "summarized below. Full details on the "no impacts," "less than significant impacts," "less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated," and mitigation measures are available in the attached IS/MND and MMRP. 1) Biological Resources: The IS identified that there are "less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated" for species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Mitigation for this impact are addressed with MM BIO-1; Vegetation Clearance and Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey, MM BIO2: Burrowing Owl Survey; MM BIO-3: Crotch's Bumble Bee Survey and Construction Monitoring; and MM BIO-4: Biological Worker's Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). 2) Biological Resources: The IS identified that there are "less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated" for riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Mitigation for this impact is addressed with MM BIO-5: Mitigation for Riparian/Riverine and Jurisdictional Impacts. This will mitigate

0.37 acres of permanent project impact and 0.09 acres of temporary project impacts with the conservation and enhancement of City owned land within Smith Creek at the eastern City Limits and participation with a Smith Creek Working group, led by the City, to review and address regional impacts to Smith Creek.
3) Biological Resources: The IS identified that there are "less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated" for conflict with provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan. Mitigations for this impact are addressed through compliance and implementation of provisions of the MSHCP, and with MM BIO-1, and MM BIO-5.
4) Cultural Resources: The IS identified that there are "less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated" for inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts. Mitigation for this impact is addressed with MM CR-1: Inadvertent Discovery.
5) Geology and Soils: The IS identified that there are "less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated" for impacts to a unique paleontological or geologic feature. Mitigation for this impact are 829
addressed with MM GEO-1: Paleontological Worker Awareness Program (WEAP); MM GEO-2:

Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP); and MM GEO-3: Fossil Discoveries. 6) Tribal Cultural Resources: Based on consultation with Native American Tribes, the IS identified that there are "less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated" for tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation for this impact is addressed with MM CR-1.

Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution adopting the IS/MND and MMRP for the SLB Extension Project and authorize staff to file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the Riverside County Clerk-Recorder and the State Clearinghouse within 5 days, which begins a 30-day statute of limitations for legal challenges on the environmental review of the Project.

Next Steps
After the City files the NOD, City staff will file formal applications with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the CDFW to obtain approval of the Dredge and Fill Permit and Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively, which are necessary approvals to begin construction of the SLB Extension Project. It is anticipated that the approval of the necessary permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the CDFW would be completed in as soon as 6 to 9 months.

City staff are also working to have encroachment permits in hand from the private utility holders (Williams, Kinder Morgan, Lumen) within that same 6-9 month period.

The City will also solicit bids for construction of the SLB Extension Project during this same period, anticipating a construction start date between April and June of 2025.

SLB Extension Project Funding
The current SLB Extension Project cost estimate, which includes environmental mitigations and endowments, is estimated at $38,000,000. The SLB Extension Project has benefitted from the following funding commitments from the City's regional funding partners:
$13,500,000 - Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Regional Arterials program (RCTC MARA)
$12,000,000 - Western Riverside County Council of Governments Transportation Uniform Fee Mitigation (WRCOG TUMF)
$2,320,000 - RCTC Measure A Road Funds
$2,500,000 - City of Banning Development Impact Fee (DIF) In light of recent actions with WRCOG adjusting the TUMF impact fee schedules and increasing Project costs considered for reimbursement, Staff will pursue further adjustments and funding commitments from our regional partners.

Future City Council Actions
There are several City Council actions that remain necessary to move the SLB Extension Project forward, and Public Works staff will bring those items back to Council as required to move the SLB Extension Project forward through construction. These items may include the following:

Acceptance of Rights of Way and Easements necessary for SLB Extension Project construction and operation;
Items related to encroachment permits for Lumen and Williams Pipelines; Construction contract awards;
Items related to mitigation as described in the IS/MND; and Approval of additional funding.

Dates on these items and the exact form of these items are unknown at this time.

JUSTIFICATION:

The adoption of Resolution 2024-184 will allow for the filing of the NOD for the SLB Extension Project, which is an implementing step for the construction of the Project. A NOD is required to apply for 830
construction applications from the CDFW and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Permits from these agencies are a requirement prior to initiation of construction of the Project.

FISCAL IMPACT:
$50 recordation fee with the Riverside County Clerk-Recorder and a $2,916.75 filing fee with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt Resolution 2024-184 and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-184 Exhibit A SLB Final IS-MND.pdf

2. Att. 1 SLB Extension - NOI Mailing.pdf

3. Att. 2 CC Resolution No. 2020-021.pdf

4. Att. 3 CC Resolution No. 2020-048.pdf

5. Att. 4 CC Resolution No. 2020-097.pdf

6. Att. 5 Agreement TUMF Sun Lakes Blvd.pdf

7. Att 6. IS Appendix A - AQ-GHG Impact Memo.pdf

8. Att 7. IS Appendix B.1 - MSHCP Consistency Analysis.pdf

9. Att 8. IS Appendix B.2 - LA Pocket Mouse Survey Report.pdf

10. Att 9. IS Appendix B.3 - Burrowing Owl Survey Report.pdf

11. Att 10. ISAppendix B.4 - Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Report.pdf

12. Att 11. IS Appendix B.5 - Wet Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Memo.pdf

13. Att 12. IS Appendix B.6 - Jurisdictional Delineation.pdf

14. Att 13. IS Appendix B.7 - DBESP Report.pdf

15. Att 14. IS Appendix C - Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment.pdf

16. Att 15. IS Appendix D - Energy Tables.pdf

17. Att. 16 IS Appendix E.1 - Geotechnical Investigation.pdf

18. Att. 17 IS Appendix E.2 - Paleo Memo.pdf

19. Att. 18 IS Appendix F - High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts.pdf

20. Att. 19 IS Appendix G - Noise Analysis Report.pdf

21. Att. 20 IS Appendix H - VMT Screening Analysis.pdf

22. Resolution 2024-184, MND.docx
831
-

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Responses to Comments, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2024090237
Prepared for:

November 12, 2024
www.webbassociates.com
832
City of Banning
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Introduction to the Final IS/MND, Responses to Comments, and MMRP
This document contains the following three items for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project:

1. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which shows text added as a result of comments received during the public comment period for the IS/MND with double underscoring as follows: example text. Deleted text is shown with strikethrough as follows: example text.

2. Responses to Comments, which contains copies of the comments received during the public comment period and responses to those comments from the CEQA Lead Agency, City of Banning (City). Section 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the Banning City Council to consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. The Responses to Comments have been prepared to provide the Banning City Council with additional information upon which to base their decision to adopt the IS/MND.

3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which has been compiled to verify implementation of adopted mitigation measures as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15097.
833
City of Banning
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
I. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Text added as a result of comments received for the IS/MND during the public comment period (see Section II) has double underscoring as follows: example text. Deleted text is shown with strikethrough as follows: example text.
834

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2024090237
Prepared for:

City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Contact: Emery Papp, Senior Planner
(951) 922-3152
Prepared by:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 686-1070
W.O. 2020-0126
November 12, 2024
835

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 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 and Zoning Designations _____________________________________ 1

7. Project Description: ____________________________________________________________ 2

8. Surrounding land uses and setting: ________________________________________________ 6

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ___________________________________________________________ 7

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? __________________ 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:______________________________________ 20 DETERMINATION _________________________________________________________________ 20 I. AESTHETICS _____________________________________________________________ 23 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES____________________________________ 26 III. AIR QUALITY_____________________________________________________________ 29 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ___________________________________________________ 35 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ____________________________________________________ 60 VI. ENERGY ________________________________________________________________ 64 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ______________________________________________________ 66 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ______________________________________________ 73 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS_______________________________________ 76 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY___________________________________________ 80 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING__________________________________________________ 87 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES _____________________________________________________ 88 XIII. NOISE __________________________________________________________________ 90 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING_______________________________________________ 100 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ________________________________________________________ 101 XVI. RECREATION ___________________________________________________________ 104 XVII. TRANSPORTATION_______________________________________________________ 105 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES _____________________________________________ 108 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ___________________________________________ 110 XX. WILDFIRE ______________________________________________________________ 114 836
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project ii
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ____________________________________ 116 EARLIER ANALYSES _______________________________________________________________ 118 REFERENCES ____________________________________________________________________ 118 EXHIBIT A ______________________________________________________________________ 125

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................9 Figure 2 – Project Location .........................................................................................................................10 Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations.......................................................................11 Figure 4 – USGS Map...................................................................................................................................12 Figure 5 – Proposed Project Easements and Rights-of-Way.......................................................................13 Figure 6a – Project Components West Extent 1.........................................................................................14 Figure 6b– Project Components West Extent 2..........................................................................................15 Figure 6c – Project Components East Extent 1...........................................................................................16 Figure 6d– Project Components East Extent 2 ...........................................................................................17 Figure 7 - Project Components Cross Sections...........................................................................................18 Figure 8– Proposed Sunset Crossroads Conceptual Land Use Plan............................................................19 Figure 9a– Vegetation Communities West.................................................................................................53 Figure 9b– Vegetation Communities Center ..............................................................................................54 Figure 9c– Vegetation Communities East...................................................................................................55 Figure 10– Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey............................................................................................56 Figure 11 – Burrowing Owl Survey Area .....................................................................................................57 Figure 12 – Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Area .........................................................................................58 Figure 13 – Fairy Shrimp Habitat ................................................................................................................59 Figure 14– Existing MDP Facilities ..............................................................................................................86

LIST OF TABLES
Table A – Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions....................................................................32 Table B – LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions..............................................................................33 Table C – –Vegetation Communities Present on the Project Site...............................................................36 Table D – Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Results.................................................................................39 Table E – Fairy Shrimp Survey Results ........................................................................................................42 Table F– Riparian/Riverine and Jurisdictional Impacts...............................................................................47 Table G – Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions .......................................................................74 Table H – Total Project-Related GHG Emissions.........................................................................................74 Table I – City of Banning Noise Thresholds.................................................................................................92 Table J – City of Beaumont Noise Threshold ..............................................................................................92 Table K– Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site....................................................95 Table L – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................................97 Table M – Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Groundborne Vibration....................98 Table N – Change in Horizon Year (2040) VMT.........................................................................................106 Table O – Change in Base Year (2012) VMT..............................................................................................107 837
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project iii

APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impact Memo
Appendix B.1 MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Appendix B.2 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey
Appendix B.3 Burrowing Owl Focused Survey
Appendix B.4 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey
Appendix B.5 Wet and Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Focused Survey Appendix B.6 Jurisdictional Delineation
Appendix B.7 Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report Appendix C Phase 1 Cultural Resource Constraints Assessment Appendix D Energy Tables
Appendix E.1 Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E.2 Paleontological Memorandum
Appendix F High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Appendix G Noise Analysis Report
Appendix H Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis
838
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project iv

ACRONYMS LIST
Acronym Definition
AB52 Assembly Bill 52
AE Applied Earthworks
AF Acre Feet
Afu Undocumented fill
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
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
Cfs Cubic feet per second
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
CRHR California Register Historical Resources
dB Decibels
FdBA 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
839
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project v
Acronym Definition
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Ha High A
HANS Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy 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
JPR Joint Project Review
LAPM Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
LDR Low Density Residential
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LST Localized Significance Threshold
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDP Master Drainage Plan
MDR Medium Density Residential
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MRZ Mineral Resources Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System
MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MTCO2e Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NHC Northwest Hydraulic Consultants
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
Non-RPW Non-relatively permanent waterways
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historical Places
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
OS-Pk Open Space – Parks
OS-R Open Space – Resources
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
Qa Holocene-age alluvium
840
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project vi
Acronym Definition
Qf Pleistocene-age Alluvial fan of the San Gorgonio Pass RCB Reinforced Concrete Boxes
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
SCE Southern California Edison
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TNM Traffic Noise Model
TNW Traditional navigable Waterways
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. 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
841
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project title
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension

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
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
City of Banning Community Development Department
[email protected]
(951) 922-3152

4. Project location
The majority of the project is located within the City of Banning (City), although a small portion is located within the unincorporated territory of Riverside County. The alignment of the proposed Sun Lakes Extension (hereinafter referred to as the “Project Site”) is in the western portion of the City, south of Interstate 10 (I-10) in between the intersections of South Highland Home Road to the west and Sunset Avenue to the east. The Project Site also extends north and south in Sunset Avenue. (Refer to Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Figure 2 – Project Location.)
1 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 and Zoning Designations
As shown on Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, the portion of the Project within the City traverses through areas in which the General Plan and Zoning Designations are (from west to east):

Specific Plan Overlay, Medium Density Residential (0-10 units/acre) (MDR), Open Space-Parks (OS-P), Open Space–Resources (OS-R), Low Density Residential (0-5 units/acre) (LDR), High Density Residential 20/Affordable Housing Opportunity (20-24 units/acre) (HDR-20), and Very Low Density Residential (0-2 units/acre) (VLDR).

The portion of the Project Site within the unincorporated territory of the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (0.5 acre/unit) (LDR) and a zoning designation of Light Agriculture 10-acre/unit (A-1-10.) 1 Figures commence on page 9.
842
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 2

7. Project Description:

The proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension project (“Project”) is a transportation project including construction of a new section of Sun Lakes Boulevard from Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue and intersection improvements (Figure 2 – Project Location). The Project is consistent with the City’s Circulation Element that was amended in January 2020 through General Plan Amendment (GPA) 19-2502. This GPA modified the previous Circulation Element (GPA 16-2501) by changing the previous Sun Lakes Boulevard alignment that connected South Highland Home Road to West Lincoln to the existing alignment that connects South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue. The road remained an east-west Arterial Highway.

The Project is approximately 5,400 linear feet (1.02 mile) and 110-feet wide, encompassing approximately

19.4 acres of direct footprint and another 9.1 acres of temporary construction disturbance area (see Figure 4 – USGS Map). The site is at an elevation of approximately 2,500 feet above mean sea level. Project staging and stockpiling will occur within the City’s ROW. The following typical section shall be constructed according to the City’s General Plan:

Typical Section – Arterial Highway
Sun Lakes Boulevard will be constructed as an Arterial Highway with two eastbound and two westbound lanes each containing a 12-feet wide lane and a 14-feet wide lane; a raised 18-foot wide median; eastbound and westbound 8-foot-wide bike lanes; 8-foot-wide sidewalks; associated road striping, drainage and street light improvements. The Project crosses over three creeks, from west to east: Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek. The Project will include the construction of three sets of culverts (i.e., Proposed Lines J, I, and K)2 to cross said creeks. The culverts are multi-cell reinforced concrete box (RCB) channels running under the proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard roadway extension. Straight wing walls with concrete and riprap aprons will be constructed at the upstream end of each channel while vertical wing walls and concrete aprons will be provided at the downstream end of channels. Concrete ramps will be constructed at the south end of the channels to provide maintenance access. Concrete swales and trapezoidal channels will be provided to intercept stormwater run-on from north of the Project and discharge it to the proposed channels, which is consistent with the City’s Master Drainage Plan (MDP).

Left turn pockets are proposed at the intersection of South Highland Home Road, a future intersecting street, and at Sunset Avenue. Stop signals will be located at the intersection of South Highland Home Road and 2 “Proposed Lines J, I, and K” correspond to the naming convention used in the Project storm drain plans and engineering hydraulic analysis. They should not be confused with the existing MDP Lines J, I and K that cross under I-10. 843
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 3
Sunset Avenue. The Project will also adjust and relocate various utilities to grade (such as sewer manhole, storm drain manhole, telecommunication manhole, power poles, air vacuums, fire hydrants, electrical risers, and electrical vault).

Currently, Westward Avenue is an east-west unpaved dirt road between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. The proposed Sun Lakes Blvd. alignment will shift to the north between the intersections, as shown on Figure 2, to avoid utility lines. The existing Westward Avenue includes two culverted concrete Arizona crossings, one at Highland Wash and Smith Creek and another at Pershing Creek. Each creek currently has at least one existing pipe culvert to convey flows under Westward Avenue, specifically three pipe culverts for Highland Wash, one pipe culvert at Smith Creek and one pipe culvert at Pershing Creek. During storm events that exceed the capacities of the existing pipe culverts, the flows will overtop the pipes and flow over Westward Avenue continuing south and back into the Smith and Pershing Creek channels. The existing Westward Avenue pipe culverts are outside of the Sun Lakes Blvd. ROW and will be abandoned in place when the Project is completed. No other constructed drainage facilities are present in the Project area. Plans for the proposed Project are included in Exhibit A, which follows the List of Initial Study Preparers on page 125.

Right-of-Way and Easement Acquisition
The Project includes the acquisition by the City of approximately 621,000 square feet (SF) of ROW, and approximately 143,000 SF of drainage easements, and approximately 44,000 SF of pipeline easements (see Figure 5 – Proposed Project Easements and Rights-of-Way). Also, Project construction will require the relocation of approximately 13 City of Banning power poles along Sun Lakes Boulevard (see Figure 5). The maximum depth of excavation is approximately 13 feet.

Proposed Creek Crossing Details
As shown on Figure 2, there are three major drainage channels which intersect with the proposed roadway alignment. The drainage design for the Project consists of three sets of multiple/in series reinforced concrete boxes (RCBs), concrete swales, loose riprap, v-gutters, and concrete trapezoidal channels. The design of the proposed RCB culverts has been developed in discussions with California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service so that the Project will not substantially decrease the amount of sediment transport currently occurring in the creeks. The in-road storm drain system (e.g., portions of proposed swales, V-gutters, trapezoidal channels) are in uplands and not in the jurisdictional areas. The RCB culverts will be in jurisdictional limits and have been designed to convey flows meeting as close to existing conditions as feasible. The proposed drainage crossings are as follows (from west to east) (refer to Figure 6a – Project Components West Extent 1, Figure 6b – Project Components West Extent 2, Figure 6c - Project Components East Extent 1, Figure 6d – Project Components East Extent 2):3 • Swale No.1 at west bank of Highland Wash (west of proposed Line J)4 o 983 linear feet of concrete swale, 4 feet wide that will capture and convey offsite flows from north of the swale into the proposed Line J RCB culvert via proposed connection to westerly wingwall of Line J.
3 Values are approximate. Exact quantities are known at final design stage. 4 “Proposed Lines J, I and K” correspond to the naming convention used in the Project storm drain plans and engineering hydraulic analysis. They should not be confused with the existing MDP Lines J, I and K that cross under I-10. 844
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 4
o Pads of ungrouted Backing No. 2 (aka, Rock Slope Protection Class II rock size) of approximately 466 SF are proposed at existing flowlines to convey flows into proposed swale and prevent erosion.
o Design flow rate: 27.5 cubic feet per second (cfs)
• Creek Crossing No.1: Highland Wash (aka Proposed Line J) o Six (6) reinforced concrete boxes (RCBs) that are 14-feet wide, 10-feet high, and 269-feet long placed within the bed of Highland Wash extending across the full width of creek, with pier nose extensions.
o Upstream of RCBs, there will be 3,483 SF of concrete apron with headwall and wingwalls.

Additionally, 2,185 SF of ¼-ton ungrouted riprap is being proposed for slope protection. o Downstream of RCBs, there will be 4,000 SF of concrete apron with headwall and wingwalls and cut off walls.
o The access maintenance ramp will be approximately 470 SF of concrete. o 2,150 SF of asphalt-concrete pavement will be installed to join existing pavement access road and maintenance ramps for Line J and Line I.
o Design flow rate: 1,715 cfs
• Swale No. 2 at east bank of Highland Wash; (east of Line J) o 332 linear feet of concrete swale that is 4 feet wide to capture and convey offsite flows north of the swale into Line J RCB culvert via proposed connection to easterly wingwall of Line J. o A 233 SF pad of ungrouted Backing No. 2 is proposed to convey flows into the swale and prevent erosion.
o Design flow rate: 35.0 cfs
• Creek Crossing No. 2: Smith Creek (aka Proposed Line I) o Seven (7) RCBs that are 14-feet wide, 10-feet high, and 140.1-feet long placed within the bed of Smith Creek extending across the full width of the creek, with pier nose extensions. o Upstream of RCBs, there will be 2,466 SF of concrete apron with headwall and wingwalls.

Additionally, 1,209 SF of ¼-ton ungrouted rip rap is being proposed for slope protection. o Downstream of RCBs, there will be 2,765 SF of concrete apron with headwall and wingwalls and cut off walls.
o The access maintenance ramp will be approximately 384 SF of concrete. o No removal of an existing impervious area.
o Design flow rate(s): 3,500 cfs
• Swale No. 3 at east bank of Smith Creek; (east of Line I) o 176 linear feet of concrete swale that is 4 feet wide to capture and convey offsite flows north of the swale into Line I RCB culvert via proposed connection to easterly wingwall of Line I. o Design flow rate(s): 1.80 cfs
• Swale No. 4 on west bank of Pershing Creek; (west of Line K) 845
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 5
o 1,680 linear feet of concrete trapezoidal channel approximately 10 feet wide that will capture and convey offsite flows from north of the swale into Line K RCB culvert via proposed connection to westerly wingwall of Line K.
o Design flow rate: 112.5 cfs
• Creek Crossing No. 3: Pershing Creek (aka Proposed Line K) o Seven (7) RCBs that are 14-feet wide, 10-feet high, and 120-feet long placed within the bed of Pershing Creek extending across the full width of the creek, with pier nose extensions. o Upstream of RCBs, there will be 4,555 SF of concrete apron with headwall, wingwalls, and cut off walls. Additionally, 2463 SF of ¼-ton ungrouted riprap is proposed for slope protection. o Downstream of RCBs, there will be 3,315 SF of concrete apron with headwall, wingwalls, and cut off walls.
o The concrete access maintenance ramp will be approximately 257 SF. o No removal of existing impervious area.
o Design flow rate: 3,800 cfs
• Swale No. 5 East of Pershing Creek
o 707 LF of concrete swale that is approximately 2 feet wide that will capture and convey offsite flows coming from north of the swale into an underground 36-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (“Lateral K-2”) that will connect to proposed Line K. o Design flow rate(s): 4.3 cfs
• There are four storm drain laterals in the Project. Laterals K-1 and K-2 drain to Pershing Creek and Laterals I-1 and I-2 drain to Smith Creek. Laterals K-2, I-1, and I-2 collect street runoff via catch basins in the street. Lateral K-2 differs in that it collects run-on from north of the Project and conveys it to Line K.

Operation and maintenance inspections of the proposed RCB culverts would occur regularly, at a minimum annually prior to flood season and after any significant runoff event. Accumulated debris and sediment at the RCB opening and support piers would be monitored and removed if necessary, per the City’s engineer staff’s discretion.

Pipeline Realignments
The Project includes a partial realignment of three pipelines within the areas noted on Figures 6a and Figure 6d. The first pipeline is a 20-inch diameter steel pipeline conveying petroleum that is owned by Kinder Morgan, Inc. which is located generally within the alignment of existing Westward Avenue and within the area of the future Sun Lakes Blvd. expansion. Approximately 1,500 linear feet of the Kinder Morgan petroleum pipeline will be relocated because of the Project so that the petroleum pipeline is not located under the new Sun Lakes Blvd extension.

The second pipeline is a 16-inch diameter steel pipeline that is owned by Williams Companies and conveys natural gas. The current alignment generally follows the existing Westward Avenue alignment, and approximately 1,500 feet of this natural gas pipeline will have to be relocated so that it does not interfere 846
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 6
with the Sun Lakes Blvd. extension alignment. Figure 6a and Figure 6d show the relocation area for the Williams natural gas pipeline that will occur as a result of this Project.

The third pipeline is a 12-inch diameter steel pipeline owned by Kinder Morgan but currently leased for telecommunications. Approximately 1,500 linear feet of the Kinder Morgan telecommunications pipeline may be relocated as well with the Project.

All three of these existing utility pipelines parallel each other and separated by a width of approximately 20- feet within the general area of existing Westward Avenue.

The pipeline owners have indicated to the City that the proposed Project cannot lie on top of the pipelines, nor can the Project cross over the pipelines at less than a 45-degree angle, or add more than a negligible depth of fill on top of the pipelines. Therefore, the extents of the realignments analyzed herein are the City’s best and most conservative assumption of what each pipeline owner will want and accept. The relocations are located at the east and west edges of the Project alignment (shown on Figure 6a and 6d), where the Project connects to the Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue intersections and veers north from the existing Westward Avenue dirt road. The majority of these three pipelines will remain in place along the existing Westward Avenue alignment.

Construction
Project construction is anticipated to occur within a two-year time span. The Project will require approximately 98,180 cubic yards of soil import. Typical construction equipment and vehicle usage is anticipated and may include, but not be limited to excavators, rubber-tired dozers/loaders, scrapers, and other material-delivery vehicles. A typical construction work schedule of weekdays during daylight hours is expected. See Section III for further details on construction-related assumptions evaluated within this IS/MND.

8. Surrounding land uses and setting:

As shown in Figure 2 – Project Location, the area to the north and south of the Project Site are currently vacant and undeveloped. However, proposed development projects for industrial/commercial is proposed on either side of Sun Lakes Blvd which are currently being processed and considered by the City of Banning separate from this Project. Adjacent to existing Westward Avenue are existing utilities that include three well sites and one wastewater lift station. West of Highland Home Road are single-family homes (primarily a retirement community). East of Sunset Avenue are single-family homes, a small number of commercial shops, the Mt. San Jacinto College San Gorgonio Pass Campus, and vacant land.

Adjacent to the north and south of the proposed Project Site are approximately 533 acres of undeveloped land for which development applications have been submitted to the City for the Sunset Crossroads project.

The proposed Conceptual Land Use plan for the Sunset Crossroads Project at the time of the NOP is shown on Figure 8 – Proposed Sunset Crossroads Conceptual Plan. On February 2, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan and related entitlements. A public scoping meeting was held for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan EIR on February 18, 2022. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was issued December 15, 2023 to commence 847
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 7
the 45-day public review period that ended on January 30, 2024. A public hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council is pending.

The Sunset Crossroads project is not a part of the Project evaluated in this Initial Study and is mentioned for informational purposes. The following proposed actions are collectively referred to as the Sunset Crossroads project: a GPA, Pre-Zoning and Zoning Amendment, and Adoption of the Specific Plan; Annexation; approval of Tract Maps; Development Agreement and other requested approvals as may be required from time to time for the project. The Sunset Crossroads project proposes the development of industrial and commercial uses on a 533.8-acre site through adoption of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan, including up to 268,400 square feet of medical office, professional office, education, recreation, and commercial uses, a travel center with refueling uses, and a 125-room hotel on 47.9-acres; and up to 5,545,000 square feet of industrial uses (including up 330,000 square feet of cold storage uses) on 392.0 acres. The Specific Plan text identifies the permitted land uses; development standards, design guidelines; and implementation provisions. The Development Project includes a GPA and Zone Changes amending the existing land use designations to General Commercial, Industrial, Open Space – Parks, and Open Space – Resources.

Approximately 65.6 acres of the Project site would be retained as Open Space - Resources and/or Open Space – Parks use, including a five-acre passive park. Approximately 253.7 acres of the site are located outside the current City boundary within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI); therefore, the Project envisions annexation of this area into the city. The Project would result in the reduction of the City’s residential capacity by a maximum of 1,146 units on the site; therefore, the City’s requirement to identify and rezone other land in the city to ensure no net loss of residential capacity is also evaluated as part of the project. The City has identified an approximately 49.2-acre site located east of Sunset Avenue and south of Westward Avenue owned by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (MSJCCD) to accept the transfer of residential capacity from the Sunset Crossroads project site. The City has initiated a GPA and rezoning of the MSJCCD site to Very High Density Residential allowing a maximum capacity of not less than 1,146 residential units. No residential development is envisioned on the MSJCCD Site at this time according to the December 15, 2023 Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR.

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement • County of Riverside, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) – funding allocation through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Final Rule.
• Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Region - Clean Water Section 401 Water Quality Certifications or Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act waste discharge permit

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area 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.? As part of GPA 19-2502, the City conducted consultation per Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB 52).

This consultation was concluded in August 2019. The following Tribes responded to the consultation request 848
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 8
for GPA 19-2502: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and Twenty- Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians noted that the Project area is located within their traditional use area and as a result would like copies of cultural resource documentation generated in connection with the Project. Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians noted that they are unaware of specific cultural resources that might be affected however, wish to be contacted if cultural resources were discovered. Morongo Band of Missions Indians noted that the Project area is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of Morongo Band of Mission Indians as such they are requesting copies of the records search, and Phase I study or other cultural assessments.

Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians noted that there were concerns regarding disturbing and destroying culturally significant resources for the Luiseno people as a result they requested to be notified and consulted at the time of any discoveries. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians stated the Project area was located outside of the Serrano ancestral territory and would not request additional consultation. Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians responded noting that they are not aware of any additional cultural resources within the Project area.

On October 15, 2020, representatives of the City and WEBB (as the City’s consultant) met virtually with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (Anne Brierty) to introduce the Project and provide background regarding the prior consultation efforts. The Project cultural resources report was also provided. No response from the tribe was received by the City after this meeting over the course of eight months (October 2020 to June 2021) of efforts to communicate. The City deemed the consultation process complete as of November 15, 2021. The consultation process is discussed further in Section XVIII of this Initial Study.
849
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Map created Sept.15, 2016. H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\vicinity_map_working\vicinity_map_working.aprx ·|þ}79
§¨¦10
San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

Diamond Valley
Reservoir

MORENO VALLEY
HEMET

SAN JACINTO

BEAUMONT

BANNING

CALIMESA
·|þ}38
·|þ}74
·|þ}243
·|þ}79
·|þ}60
§¨¦10
Map
Area
0 2 4 6 Miles
I
Project Location
^
Source: Riverside County GIS, 2020
850

WESTWARD AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD
I 10
S
U
N
S
ET A
VE

SUN LAKES BLVD
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\Project_site_6-19-24\Project_site_6-19-24.aprx Map created 26 Jul 2024 Source: Nearmap, 2024.

Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 2 - Project Location
I
0 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
LEGEND
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts
Pipeline Realignment Impact Boundary
City of Banning
Highland Wash Smith Creek
Existing Railroad
C I T Y O F B A N N I N G Pershing Creek

R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
851
AG
LDR
§¨¦10
PF-RI
HSC
OS-Pk
MDR
MDR
OS-Pk
OS-R
MDR
GC
OS-Pk

LDR LDR
MDR
OS-Pk
LDR
MDR
VLDR
MDR
OS-Pk
MDR
PF-S
MDR
RR
OS-Pk
BP GC
OS-Pk OS-R OS-Pk
GC
OS-Pk
LDR
LDR OS-Pk
HDR-20
\\chqpan01.webb.lan\WO4\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\GP_LandUse.aprx Map created 26 Jul 2024 Source: City of Banning GP
Land Use and Zoning (June 2021);
Riverside County Land Use and Zoning, 2023. Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations I
0 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
LEGEND
Permanent Impact Boundary
Temporary Impact Boundary
Pipeline Realignment Impact Boundary
Cities
Riverside County Zoning
A-1-10 (Light Agriculture)
Riverside County General Plan Land Use
Low Density Residential
Agriculture
City of Banning General Plan Land Use and Zoning
Business Park
General Commercial
High Density Residential-20/Affordable Housing Opportunity (20-24 du/ac) Highway Serving Commercial
Low Density Residential (0-5 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (0-10 du/ac)
Open Space - Parks
Open Space - Resources
Public Facilities - School
Public Facilities - Railroad/Interstate
Rural Residential
Very Low Density Residential (0-2 du/ac)
Specific Plan
City of
Banning
Riverside
County
852
Figure 4 - USGS Map
LEGEND
Permanent Impact Boundary
Temporary Impact Boundary
Pipeline Realignment Impact Boundary
\\chqpan01.webb.lan\WO4\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\Topography_working\Topography_working.aprx; Map created 26 Jul 2024; juliaa Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project I
0 400 800 1,200
Feet
Sources: ESRI / USGS 7.5 min Quad Riverside Co.

Section 7, Township 3S, Range 1E, S.B.B.M
853
Sources: WEBB Figure 5 - Proposed Project Easements and Rights-Of-Way \\brkpan01.webb.lan\WO4\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx; Map created 24 Jul 2024 Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
854
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\Project_site_6-19-24\Project_site_6-19-24.aprx Map created 26 Jul 2024 Source: Nearmap, 2024.

Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 6a - Project Components West Extent 1
I
0 50 100 150
US Feet
LEGEND
Pipeline Realignment Impact Boundary
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Backing
Concrete Swale
Existing Pipelines

WESTWARD AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD

SUNSET AVE

SUN LAKES BLVD

HIGHLAND HOME RD

WESTWARD AVE
Area where pipeline
relocation will occur
855
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\Project_site_6-19-24\Project_site_6-19-24.aprx Map created 26 Jul 2024 Source: Nearmap, 2024.

Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 6b - Project Components West Extent 2
I
0 50 100 150
US Feet
LEGEND
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Concrete Apron
Concrete Access Road
Concrete Access Ramp
Concrete Wingwalls
Loose Riprap
Backing
Catch Basin
Nose Pier Extensions
Lateral lines
Concrete Swale
RCBs*
Trapazoidal Concrete Channel
Existing Pipelines

WESTWARD AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD

SUNSET AVE

SUN LAKES BLVD

PROPOSED LINES J AND I
Highland Wash
Smith Creek
*Reinforced Concrete Box
Creek Crossing No. 1: Highland Wash
(aka Proposed Line J)
Creek Crossing No. 2: Smith Creek
(aka Proposed Line I)
Lat I-1 Lat I-2

WESTWARD AVE
856
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\Project_site_6-19-24\Project_site_6-19-24.aprx Map created 26 Jul 2024 Source: Nearmap, 2024.

Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 6c - Project Components East Extent
I
0 50 100 150
US Feet
LEGEND
Pipeline Realignment Impact Boundary
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Concrete Wingwalls
Concrete Apron
Concrete Access Ramp
Loose Riprap
Backing
Catch Basin
RCBs*
Nose Pier Extensions
Lateral lines
Trapazoidal Concrete Channel
Concrete Swale
Existing Pipelines

PROPOSED LINE K
Pershing Creek
*Reinforced Concrete Boxes
Creek Crossing No. 3: Pershing Creek
(aka Proposed Line K) Lat K-2
Lat K-1

WESTWARD AVE
857
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\Project_site_6-19-24\Project_site_6-19-24.aprx Map created 26 Jul 2024 Source: Nearmap, 2024.

Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 6d - Project Components East Extent 2
I
0 50 100 150
US Feet
LEGEND
Pipeline Realignment Impact Boundary
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Concrete Apron
Concrete Wingwalls
Backing
Lateral lines
Concrete Swale
Existing Pipelines

WESTWARD AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD

SUNSET AVE

SUN LAKES BLVD

WESTWARD AVE

SUNSET AVE
858
7 Cell - 14'X10' Reinforced Concrete Box Trapezoidal Channel Swale Representative Creek Crossing Profile Commpressed Dirt Commpressed Dirt Loose Riprap
Wingwall Wingwall
Nose Pier
Extension Concrete Apron
Shotcrete LiningShotcrete Lining water flow
Road Surface
Class II
Aggregate Base Asphalt
Concrete Headwall Headwall
Concrete Collar
Retaining
Wall
Reinforced Concrete
Pipe
Reinforced Concrete
Box water flow 7
859
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\Prop_Sun_Cross_lup\Prop_Sun_Cross_lup.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: T & B Planning, Inc.

Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 8 - Proposed Sunset Crossroads Conceptual Land Use Plan 860
861
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 21
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.
862
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 22
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. 863
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 23
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 2,500 feet above sea level. Given the differences in elevation between the Project Site and the mountains, the proposed Project does not include any sizeable above-grade features that would have the potential to obscure views of the San Bernardino Mountains or the San Jacinto Mountains. Construction equipment and related construction activity along 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 will be less than significant.

Sources: GP DEIR; Project Description
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 (Figure 1) 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) 864
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 24
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 more than 2 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, 2023 United States Census Bureau data, Banning has a population of approximately 31,680 persons and Beaumont has a population of 58,463 persons, totaling to a population of approximately 90,143 persons (USCB). The January 1, 2024, California Department of Finance population estimate for Banning and Beaumont is approximately 31,213 and 57,416, 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 possible from four locations: (i) the intersection of Sun Lakes Boulevard/Bay Hills Road, (ii) Highland Home Road (between Sun Lakes Boulevard and Death Valley Road), (iii) Sunset Avenue (between Interstate 10 (I-10) and Bob Cat Road), and (iv) the intersection of Westward Avenue/Sunset Avenue. The Project Site may also be briefly visible from motorists traveling in the westbound lanes of I-10, which is approximately one-half mile north of and parallel to 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 vacant land with an improved road, this will not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of public views of the site or its surroundings. Because existing Westward Avenue and 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, 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; USCB; DOF
865
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 25
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 the 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 affect human vision, navigation, and other activities; however, it can also affect nocturnal wildlife particularly night-hunting or foraging animals, such as owls, rodents, and others. Glare is typically associated with installation of windows and other reflective surfaces.

The only lighting currently sourced from the general Project area is from the Sun Lakes development to the west of the Project Site and the existing commercial and residential development east of the Project Site; thus, the Project Site is generally dark at night. The streetlights proposed as part of the Project will create a new source of light within the Project Site. However, the streetlights will be shielded and directed downwards on the street surface to minimize spillage and light pollution in accordance with the City’s standards. Project implementation will not introduce a source of substantial glare to the surrounding area. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; IDA
866
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 26
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 Project Site consists of, and is adjacent to, Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land, and has Urban and Built-Up Land directly adjacent on the east and west. 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
867
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 27
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; the land south of Westward Avenue near the Project Site that is under a Williamson Act contract is either in non-renewal status or is not considered prime agricultural farmland. 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.) As shown on Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, Riverside County zones the land south of the Project Site as A-1-10, which is defined as Light Agriculture. (RCZO, p. XIII-1.) However, the City land use and zoning designation for that area is LDR, and 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; RCZO
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.

Less than significant impact. The Project does not propose or require rezoning. As shown on Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, the majority of the proposed Project Site is within the City with a portion located in the unincorporated territory of Riverside County. Banning does not have a zoning designation forforest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City limits. Further, according to Table 17.08.020 of Banning’s Zoning Ordinance, 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).

Regarding the portion of the Project Site within Riverside County, forest land, timberland, and timberland production occurs at a much higher elevation, typically 5,000 feet. The Project Site is located at an elevation of approximately 2,500 feet above mean sea level. Per Riverside County’s A-1-10 Light Agriculture Zone permits tree crops. However, as shown on Figure 3, only a small portion of the Project Site is within the A-1-10 Zone, which does allow for production of tree crops. Given the small area of the Project Site within Riverside County, and that the Project Site does not traverse through or adjacent to areas zoned for forest land, or Timberland Production, impacts would be less than significant. 868
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 28
Sources: GP; PRC 12220; PRC 4526; BMC; Ord. 348
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; Site Visit
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? Less than significant 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, impacts are less than significant.

Sources: FMMP; GP
869
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 29
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 nonattainment 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:

The focus of the air quality analysis is to evaluate the impacts of regulated air pollutants, which are the amounts of foreign and/or natural substances occurring in the atmosphere that may result in human health impacts due to their release from numerous sources. Health‐based ambient air quality standards have been established for seven air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM-10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM-2.5), and lead (Pb).
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) prepares the 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. 1-1 and 1-4.) The control measures and related emission reduction estimates included in the AQMP are based on emissions projections for a future development scenario 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) also known as Connect SoCal. (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. 76.), which are outlined in the GP. Thus, since the 2022 AQMP is consistent with the Connect SoCal, the Connect SoCal is also consistent with the growth assumptions 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 will design, construct, and operate the Sun Lakes Boulevard, a planned roadway designated an Arterial Highway, in accordance with the City’s GP Circulation Element. As a planned roadway, 870
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 30
no increase in population is expected as it is meant to facilitate mobility within the City. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: SCAG RTP/SCS; SCAQMD 2022
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 2022) The SCAQMD considers the thresholds for project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts to be the same. (SCAQMD 2003.) Therefore, projects that exceed projectspecific 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 would primarily be from infrequent 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 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 application of water or chemical stabilizers to 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 disturbance area (approximately 23.47 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 November 2, 2021 (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 2020.4.0. The estimated construction period for the proposed Project is approximately 18 to 24 months, beginning no sooner than February 2023. A duration of 24 months was evaluated to provide a worst-case analysis. The default parameters within CalEEMod were used and these default values 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, assumptions relevant to model inputs for short-term construction emission estimates used are: (WEBB(a), p. 2) 871
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 31
• Construction is anticipated to begin in February 2023, which will include construction activities such as utility relocation, installation of drainage improvements, roadway improvements, and traffic signal installation and paving. Because the schedule is unknown, the grading and paving activities were assumed to occur concurrently throughout the estimated construction duration to provide a conservative analysis. The estimated construction schedule is shown below: (WEBB(a), p. 2) Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days
Grading February 01, 2023 January 31, 2025 523
Paving February 01, 2023 January 31, 2025 523
• The off-road equipment to be used for each activity is shown below and represents program defaults. Each piece of equipment is assumed to operate 8 hours per day: (WEBB(a), pp. 2-3) Construction Activity Off-Road Equipment Unit Amount
Grading Excavators 2
Grader 1
Rubber Tired Dozer 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Scrapers 2
Paving Pavers 2
Paving Equipment 2
Rollers 2
• To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, the Project utilized the mitigation option of watering the Project site three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 61 percent for PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions. Two (2) one-way vendor trips per day were added to the grading and paving activity to account for water truck trips. (WEBB(a), p. 3) • Eight (8) one-way hauling truck trips per day were included during paving to account for material delivery. (WEBB(a), p. 3)
• Approximately 98,180 cubic yards of soil import is required for the Project. The import site is currently unknown. Therefore, the CalEEMod default was utilized which assumes a hauling trip length of 20 miles per trip. Based on the CalEEMod default truck capacity of 16 cubic yards, approximately 6,136 truckloads of soil would be imported. (WEBB(a), p. 3) This results in approximately 12 truckloads of soil delivered per day (approximately 24 one-way truck trips per day) during construction.

The results of this analysis are summarized in Table A –Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, below.
872
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 32
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
Grading 2023 3.45 37.11 29.45 0.08 5.70 2.94
Grading 2024 3.34 34.98 29.09 0.08 5.61 2.86
Grading 2025 3.02 30.52 27.65 0.08 5.41 2.67
Paving 2023 1.16 11.14 15.38 0.03 0.84 0.57
Paving 2024 1.11 10.47 15.39 0.03 0.80 0.53
Paving 2025 1.03 9.52 15.31 0.03 0.75 0.48
Maximum1 4.61 48.25 44.83 0.11 6.54 3.51
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: WEBB(a), Table 2 – Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Note: 1 Maximum emissions are either the greater of grading and paving in 2023, 2024, or 2025 as these activities overlap.

Maximum emissions are shown in bold.

As shown in Table A above, the emissions from construction of the Project are below the SCAQMD daily construction thresholds for all criteria pollutants. In addition, the short-term emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LST). (WEBB(a), Table 2.) As such, the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment and the impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Sources: CARB 2022; 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 preexisting respiratory and/or cardiovascular illness. SCAQMD defines a “sensitive receptor” as a land use or facility such as residences, schools, childcare centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, retirement homes, and convalescent homes where these persons are typically located. (SCAQMD 1993.) The proposed Project is located adjacent to existing residences. The closest sensitive receptors are the residences adjacent to each end of the Project alignment. (WEBB(a), p. 4.) 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 tables5 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 Project’s total disturbance area is approximately 23.47 acres. However, based on SCAQMD guidance, the daily disturbance area is 5 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds 873
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 33
approximately 3 acres.6 Therefore, the two-acre LST Look-Up Table was compared with the on-site emissions estimated by CalEEMod to provide a conservative analysis.

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. The results are summarized below.

Table B – LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions
Activity Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
LST for 2 acres at 25
meters
149 1,541 10 6
Grading 2023 34.52 28.05 5.02 2.74
Grading 2024 32.38 27.72 4.93 2.65
Grading 2025 27.94 26.33 4.73 2.47
Paving 2023 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
Paving 2024 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43
Paving 2025 8.58 14.58 0.42 0.39
Maximum1 44.71 42.63 5.53 3.21
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: WEBB(a), Table 3 – LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions.

Note: 1 Maximum emissions are either the greater of grading and paving in 2023, 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.

Short-term emissions will only be generated in the Project area during construction of the Project and have been found to be less than significant (see Response IIIb). The operational emissions are negligible as they consist of roadway maintenance; hence, the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

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.
6 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2 874
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 34
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 roadway which is not included on CARB’s list of uses that are known to be prone to generate odors. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Source: CARB 2005
875
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 35
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 in this section is based on the findings of several technical studies prepared by WSP USA, Inc. for the Project, which are located in Appendix B.1 through B.7:
• Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis, June 2024 (hereinafter, “MSHCP Consistency Report”);
• Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey, June 2024 (hereinafter the LAPM Survey Report); • Burrowing Owl Focused Survey, June 2024 (hereinafter, “Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report”); • Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey, June 2024, (hereinafter, “NEPSSA Report”); • 2020-2021 Wet and Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Focused Surveys Technical Memorandum, June 2024 (hereinafter, “Fairy Shrimp Technical Memo”);
• Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report, June 2024 (hereinafter, “DBESP”); and
• Jurisdictional Delineation Report, June 2024 (hereinafter, “JD Report”) 876
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 36
The aforementioned reports included literature reviews and database 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, Soil Survey data, vegetation mapping, United States Fish and Wildlife Services’ (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory, and the USFWS Critical Habitat mapper. Historic aerial photographs and soils maps from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) were also reviewed. In addition to the literature review and database searches, pedestrian surveys were conducted of the Project Site and surrounding area. The City of Banning is a permittee to the MSHCP.
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 MSHCP Consistency Report, the Project Site is currently undeveloped, with no existing structures and is composed of the following six vegetation communities: buckwheat scrub, non-native grassland, riparian scrub/woodland, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, unvegetated streambed, and disturbed/developed as shown on Figure 9 – Vegetation Communities. 7 Implementation of the proposed Project will result in permanent and temporary impacts to these vegetation communities, as shown below in Table C – Vegetation Communities Present on the Project Site. (WSP(a), p.

10.) Permanent impacts include the direct footprint of the Project and temporary impacts include the adjacent temporary construction disturbance buffer around the Project footprint.

Table C – –Vegetation Communities Present on the Project Site Vegetation Community
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Temporary
Impacts
(acres)
Grand Total
(acres)
Buckwheat Scrub 10.08 3.63 13.69
Disturbed/Developed 1.62 0.91 2.534
Non-native Grassland 6.97 4.34 11.31
Non-vegetated Streambed 0.39 0.13 0.52
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub 0.28 0.04 0.32
Riparian Scrub Woodland 0.05 0.03 0.08
Total 19.39 9.08 28.47
Source: WSP(a), Table 1. Land Use Acreage by Habitat (Vegetation Community/Land Cover).

According to MSHCP Consistency Report Table 1 (Special Status Plant Species Potential for Occurrence), a total of 13 special status plant species were identified from state and federal databases that have the potential to occur within the Project site. One plant species, Mojave tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis) listed as state endangered and CRPR Rank of 1B.3 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere but not very threatened in California) has a “low” potential to occur because marginal habitat is present on the Project site 7 Figures for the Biological Resources section are located at the end of this section. 877
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 37
but it was not observed onsite during biological surveys conducted for the Project. The nearest known occurrence of Mojave tarplant is 1.6 miles southeast dating from 2012. A second plant species, smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) listed as CRPR Rank 1B.1 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere but seriously threatened in California), has a “moderate” potential to occur because suitable habitat is present on the Project site but it was not observed during surveys conducted for the Project.

The nearest known occurrence of smooth tarplant is approximately 10 miles west in San Timoteo Canyon. The remaining 11 special status plant species are considered “absent” due to lack of suitable habitat and lack of recorded observations (WSP(a)). Both Mojave tarplant and smooth tarplant are Covered Species under the MSHCP. Because the Project is not within a MSHCP-survey area for these species, and none have been found, the Project will not significantly affect the species and no additional surveys or measures are required for these two species.

In addition, one special status vegetation community was identified by state databases to potentially occur onsite, which is Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. This vegetation community is listed by the State as CRPR rank of S3.2 (Vulnerable and threatened). According to the MSHCP Consistency Report, this vegetation community is absent from the Project (Table 2, Special Status Vegetation Community Potential for Occurrence).

Lastly, according to the MSHCP Consistency Report, Table 3 (Special Status Animals), a total of 20 special status animal species were identified from state and federal databases that have potential to occur within the Project site. The following nine species have “low” potential to occur due to lack of habitat and/or were not observed onsite: Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus), monarch butterfly (Danaus Plexippus), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), purple martin (Progne subis), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). The following four species have “moderate” potential to occur due to suitable habitat present onsite: Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Southern California rufus-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). One reptile species was observed on the Project site, coastal whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri). The coastal whiptail lizard is listed as a CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC) with a CRPR rank of “S3” (vulnerable). The remaining six special status species are considered “absent” from the Project site. The coastal whiptail is locally common throughout most of western Riverside County. Although observed during biological surveys on the Project site, adverse impacts to the species are not expected as a result of the Project because the drainage features will remain intact to provide wildlife corridors and allow any coastal whiptails that may be present to freely move through the site. Therefore, no further action is required for the coastal whiptail lizard.

The Project Site contains suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Impacts to nesting birds, both direct and indirect, can be minimized or eliminated during Project-related activities by conducting work outside of the breeding season. Although nesting can occur yearround in southern California for some species, the typical avian breeding season is from approximately February 1st through August 31st. To reduce impacts to nesting birds, the Project shall implement mitigation measure MM BIO-1, which requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to any Project-related ground disturbing activities between September 1st and January 31st. 878
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 38
MM BIO-1: Vegetation Clearance and Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. To avoid direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, any Project-related ground disturbance/vegetation clearance must take place between September 1 and February 1. For preconstruction nesting bird surveys, if vegetation clearance does not occur within the September 1 to February 1 timeframe, then a preconstruction nesting bird survey would be required. A qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of construction to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (100 feet) to the Project Site. The nesting bird survey(s) would focus on identifying any passerine or raptor nests that would be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. If active bird nests are documented, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active bird nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be deterred until the young birds have fledged. A minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to the City of Banning for review and approval prior to initiation of construction in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Banning for approval prior to initiating construction activities.

The Project Site is located within survey areas designated by the Western Riverside County MSHCP for the following species: Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and two narrow endemic plant species, Marvin’s (also known as Yucaipa) onion (Allium marvinii), and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). The Project Site also contained non-vernal pool depressions that could support fairy shrimp habitat. Thus, focused surveys for Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM), burrowing owl, Marvin’s onion, many-stemmed dudleya, and fairy shrimp were conducted as discussed in the following paragraphs.

Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) LAPM is designated a species of special concern by CDFW and is not federally or state listed as threatened or endangered. Since portions of the Project Site are within the MSHCP Mammal Survey Area for the LAPM and potential habitat for this species is present, WSP conducted focused surveys as required by the MSHCP. The survey results are documented in the LAPM Survey Report in Appendix B.2 to this Initial Study.

As part of the LAPM Survey Report, WSP biologists conducted operations over five nights from September 13-18, 2020. These nights were forecasted to have suitable conditions for surveying. A total of six grids of 25 traps were placed within those portions of the Project Site with suitable habitat that are also within the MSHCP designated survey area for LAPM (refer to Figure 10 – Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Results). As shown below in Table D – Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Results, a total of 583 mammals were trapped over the course of 750 trap-nights, which represents a trapping success rate of 77.7 percent. (WSP(b), p. 3.) 879
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 39
Table D – Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Results
Species Trapped
Number of Species Trapped Each Night
Sept 13–14 Sept 14–15 Sept 15–16 Sept 16–17 Sept 17–18 Totals Northwestern San Diego
Pocket Mouse
Chaetodipus fallax
13 30 38 38 40 159
Dulzura Kangaroo Rat
Dipodomys simulans
4 9 8 4 10 35
Dulzura Kangaroo Rat
Dipodomys simulans
1 2 0 1 2 6
Bryant’s (San Diego Desert)
Woodrat
Neotoma bryanti (lepida)
intermedia
1 1 0 1 1 4
Baja Mouse
Peromyscus fraterculus
1 0 0 0 0 1
Deer Mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus
59 68 83 86 69 365
Western Harvest Mouse
Reithrodontomys megalotis
2 3 1 4 3 13
Totals 81 113 130 134 125 583
Source: WSP(b), Table 2. Survey Results
As shown in the above table, seven species of mammals were captured, none of which were the LAPM. Two other species status species were captured: the northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) and the Bryant’s Woodrat (Neotoma bryanti intermedia), formally known as the San Diego desert woodrat. Both of these species are CDFW species of special concern, and both are covered under the MSHCP. (WSP(b), p. 3.)
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
The burrowing owl is currently designated a “California Species of Concern” by the CDFW, a “Bird of Conservation Concern” by the USFWS, and “Sensitive” by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management. Burrowing owls are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800, and the MSHCP. (WSP(c), p. 4.) Since the Project Site is within the MSHCP survey area for burrowing owl, WSP conducted focused surveys as required by the MSHCP and documented in the Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report, which is included as Appendix B.3 to this Initial Study.

The burrowing owl focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the two-step protocol provided by the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency. Step 1 and Step 2, Part A of the protocol 880
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 40
were conducted on July 17, 2020. Step 1 consisted of assessing suitable habitat on the Project Site and Step 2, Part A consisted of mapping locations of burrows that would be suitable for burrowing owls. Step II, Part B consisted of focused burrow surveys conducted on four occasions, July 24, July 31, August 6, and August 12, 2020. (WSP(c), p. 4.)
As shown on Figure 11 – Burrowing Owl Survey Results, a total of approximately 30 burrows suitable for burrowing owl use were detected within the Project boundary and the Project’s 500-foot buffer zone survey area. No evidence of burrowing owls being present at any of the burrows were detected and no owls were observed on the Project Site or within the adjacent 500-foot buffer zone survey area. It should be noted that an occupied burrow, with at least two burrowing owls was observed approximately 0.35-mile south of the eastern Project buffer zone. (WSP(c), p. 5.) Since there was suitable unoccupied habitat for burrowing owl reported within the Project Site, there is potential for burrowing owls to colonize the Project Site at any time.

Therefore, prior to any Project-related ground disturbing activity, mitigation measure MM BIO-2 shall be implemented.

MM BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Survey. To avoid direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls, a qualified biologist shall conduct a minimum one visit 30-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey of all suitable habitat that is slated for any vegetation removal, grading, or other disturbance in the Project site. The burrowing owl survey shall be conducted to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and according to the MSHCP “Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions” dated 2006. A report of the survey findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Banning and County of Riverside Environmental Programs Division (Riverside County EPD) for review and approval prior to any ground disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected on the Project Site during the 30-day preconstruction survey, and during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st), then construction activities shall be limited to beyond 300 feet of the active burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting efforts are competed or not initiated. In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl mitigation plan will be developed based on the Riverside County EPD, CDFW, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements for the relocation of individuals. Passive relocation may occur when owls are found onsite during preconstruction surveys conducted outside of the breeding season. If no owls are found onsite during the preconstruction survey, then construction may commence within 30 days without another survey.

Narrow Endemic Plant Species – Marvin’s Onion (Allium marvinii) and Many-stemmed Dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)
Nearly the entire Project Site is within the MSHCP narrow endemic plant species survey area (NEPSSA) for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya (Figure 12 – MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plan Survey Area); thus, WSP conducted a focused survey for these species as required by the MSHCP and documented in the NEPSSA Report, which is included as Appendix B.4 to this Initial Study. Marvin’s onion is designated by the State as critically imperiled and by the CNPS as moderately threatened in California. Many-stemmed dudleya is 881
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 41
designated by the State as imperiled and by the CNPS as moderately threatened in California. (WSP(d), Table

1.)
The focused surveys were conducted on May 26 and 27, 2020, which was the appropriate time of year for the detection of Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya. The surveys were conducted following a period of above average rainfall for the 2019-2020 winter season; thus, survey timing was ideal for the detection of these two target plant species. Since neither Marvin’s onion nor many-stemmed dudleya were detected, both species are considered absent from the Project Site and no further surveys are required. (WSP(d), p. 4.) Fairy Shrimp
Several species of fairy shrimp are considered sensitive by the USFWS and CDFW because of their rarity and/or association with sensitive aquatic habitats such as vernal pools. Two federally listed fairy shrimp species are known to occur within Riverside County: vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni). No federally-designated Critical Habitat has been designated for these species in western Riverside County. A third species, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), is an unlisted sensitive species that occurs only on the Santa Rosa Plateau of Riverside County, which is not in the Project study area.

Nine inundated depressions were identified on the Project Site as meeting the protocol criteria for pooling sufficient to support listed fairy shrimp species. Due to the presence of these depressions, wet and dry fairy shrimp focused surveys were conducted and the results documented in the Fairy Shrimp Technical Memo included as Appendix B.5 to this Initial Study.

As documented in the Fairy Shrimp Technical Memo, each of the ten ponded areas shown on Figure 13 – Fairy Shrimp Habitat were systematically sampled by an USFWS permitted biologist per the USFWS protocol Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Wet season surveying began after the first storm on November 8, 2021 until the rainy season ended and the last inundated pool reached 120 days of continuous inundation on April 28, 2021. (WSP(e), p. 1.)
Dry season surveys took place on December 24, 2020 and June 8, 2021 while there were dry soils. All fairy shrimp cysts collected during the dry season were hatched in isolated environmental chambers, a total of three hatching attempts were performed, and all hatchlings were grown until mature enough to be identified.

As shown below in Table E – Fairy Shrimp Survey Results the common, unlisted versatile fairy shrimp was detected in two pools. Because the wet and dry season surveys did not detect any special-status species of fairy shrimp, special-status fairy shrimp are considered absent from the Project Site and will not be impacted by implementation of the proposed Project. (WSP(e), p. 2.) 882
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 42
Table E – Fairy Shrimp Survey Results
Pool Number
(see Figure 12)
Wet Season
Fairy Shrimp
Detected?
Dry Season
Fairy Shrimp
Detected?
Special Status
Fairy Shrimp
Detected?
3 No No No
9 Yes Yes No
14 No No No
15 No No No
16 No No No
21 No No No
33 No No No
40 No No No
41 No No
46 No No No
Source: WSP(e), Table 1. Fairy Shrimp Ponded Areas
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) has been designated as an endangered species under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List since 2014 (IUCN 2024) and is recently considered a Candidate endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act since 2019 (CDFW 2021; Hatfield and Jepsen 2021). It has not been listed as threatened or endangered by either the USFWS or CDFW.

Crotch’s bumble bee primarily occurs in California’s pacific coast, western desert, and adjacent foothills throughout most of the state's southwestern region, where it inhabits grasslands and shrublands and requires a hotter and drier environment than other bumble bee species. Overwintering occurs in soil or under leaf litter/debris. The bees nest in various cavities and forage on a number of annual flowers, including plants in the following floristic families: Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Boraginaceae, and Hydrophyllaceae. Genera include Antirrhinum, Asclepias, Chaenactis, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, Eriogonum, Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia (Hatfield et al. 2018).

Worker bees are typically active from April to August and queen bees are generally active for only two months, from February through March. Once the queen selects the hive location, the active colony is detectable between April and August. Notably, bumble bees move nests sites each year. Crotch’s bumble bees require flowering plants for the entire activity period to be considered suitable for an active hive.

Because the Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate endangered species according to the California Endangered Species Act and can potentially occur in the Project area especially if there are suitable flowering plants available, the Project has the potential to adversely impact said species. Therefore, focused surveys and records searches shall be conducted according to mitigation measure MM BIO-3 and a worker’s environmental awareness program (WEAP) shall be provided according to MM BIO-4. 883
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 43
MM BIO-3: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Preconstruction Survey and Construction Monitoring. In order to avoid direct and indirect impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB), which could establish themselves on the Project site before construction starts be present in flowering habitat or in burrows along the creek embankments, a qualified CBB biologist (i.e., 1-2 years of experience performing CBB surveys, or, has a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with CDFW), shall perform the records searches and site surveys according to the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) prior to the start of grounddisturbing project activities. The literature review and records search shall identify occurrences at the Project site and within a 5-mile buffer. The literature review and records search shall include:
a report from the CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base for a 10-mile radius of the project site; aerial photographs; and iNaturalist for bee sightings and nectar sources. Then, the qualified biologist shall conduct on-site surveys for foraging and nesting bees. The surveys shall begin with a habitat assessment to evaluate the likelihood of bumble bees occurring within and adjacent to the project area. Then, foraging bumble bee and nesting surveys shall be conducted during the peak nectar blooming period (April through June 30). Habitat assessment and survey results shall be submitted to CDFW prior to the start of ground-disturbing project activities. Vegetation removal is allowable from November to January (note seasonal limitations for nesting birds in MM BIO-1). No monitoring is required if removal of vegetation occurs during this time period.

However, vegetation removal/ground disturbances during the CBB flight season, which is February to October, will require preemptive focused CBB surveys and full-time biological monitoring for CBB to take place within the project limits. Construction monitoring for CBB may cease based on the professional judgement of the qualified CBB biologist that construction activities have already impacted the extent of the planned impact footprint. If an active CBB nest is detected during focused surveys conducted between April and June, or during the construction monitoring, then the qualified biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer zone (including foraging resources and flight corridors essential for supporting the colony) around the CBB nest. The qualified biologist and City shall notify CDFW and if needed, process an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) with CDFW. If a single CBB is observed during construction, CDFW shall be notified, and work shall be halted in that area until the qualified biologist deems the CBB has left the site. It is expected that if an ITP is needed, that the offsite mitigation site along Smith Creek proposed by MM BIO-5, which has similar habitat types and embankments, could support CBB. If offsite mitigation for CBB is needed, then a CBB permitted land manager shall be hired by the City to ensure CBB habitat is intact on the offsite mitigation property.

MM BIO-4: Biological Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP): The City of Banning shall enlist a qualified biologist to conduct a mandatory training for all construction contractors and their employees on project-related environmental concerns, including Crotch’s bumble bee, burrowing owl, pertinent rare plant species, and riparian/riverine features. To the extent feasible, the biologist conducting the WEAP shall be the same one enlisted by the City for MM BIO-1 (nesting bird surveys), MM BIO-2 (burrowing owl surveys), and MM BIO-3 (Crotch’s bumble bee surveys). This WEAP can occur during the same meeting as the paleontological WEAP described in MM GEO-1. No individual shall be permitted to work at the Project Site until they have completed 884
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 44
WEAP training. The City’s Project biologist will conduct additional trainings, as needed for different construction crews that come onboard throughout the ground-disturbing activities of the Project.

In lieu of in-person training, the WEAP may be recorded and presented to any contractor or crew member not present at the initial in-person training.

Thus, with implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, and MM BIO-4 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: WSP(a); WSP(b); WSP(c); WSP(d); WSP(e)
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?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. According to the MSHCP Consistency Report, no vernal pools were detected on the Project Site; however, riparian/riverine areas were detected on the Project Site consisting of three existing ephemeral drainages: Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek, as well as six existing pipe culverts under Westward Avenue (pipes of varying diameters) as riverine resources (WSP(a), p. 13). So that the proposed road can pass over the ephemeral drainages, the Project will utilize series of 6 to 7 reinforced concrete boxes (RCBs) that are each 14-feet wide and 10-feet tall in each drainage to maintain the flow passing through these drainages.

Highland Wash
Highland Wash is an ephemeral drainage containing riparian and riverine resources that flows from north to south and crosses perpendicular to the Project Site. Flow originates from north of Interstate 10 and from the Sun Lakes community immediately northwest of the Project. Within Project boundaries, Highland Wash contains an active low flow channel with an adjacent active floodplain that is bordered on the west with low terraces and on the east with incised channel walls that are both bordered by uplands. The active low-flow channel is 12 inches wide with a silty/sandy bed and no vegetation within the Project area. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and drift. The adjacent active floodplains varies from roughly 3-feet to 15-feet wide and evidenced by a more pebbly substrate then the low flow channel as well as ripples, older drift, presence of bed and bank, benches and no vegetation. The ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) is approximately 8-inches and indicated by a break in slope and change in vegetative cover from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with midstage upland vegetation consisting of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer limit of the low terrace is characterized by a higher vegetative density of buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction.

Highland Wash likely flows for less than 3 months per year and therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional. Highland Wash joins with Smith Creek at Westward Avenue. (WSP(a), p. 11.)
885
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 45
Smith Creek
Smith Creek is an ephemeral drainage containing riparian and riverine resources that flows north to south and crosses perpendicular to the proposed Project. Smith Creek is east of Highland Wash. Flow to Smith Creek originates from a large watershed north of I-10. Within the Project boundaries, Smith Creek contains an active low flow channel with adjacent active floodplain that is bordered with low terraces. The active low-flow channel is approximately 8 inches wide with a silty/sandy bed and no vegetation. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and drift. The adjacent active floodplain is on average 20-feet wide and the limits of which evidenced by a more pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as ripples, older drift, presence of bed and bank, benches, and limited pockets of early-stage vegetation. OHWM is approximately 6-inches and indicated by a break in slope and changes in vegetative cover and sediment texture from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with late-stage upland vegetation consisting mostly of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer limit of the low terrace is characterized by change in slope and a higher vegetative density of California buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction.

Smith Creek likely flows for less than 3 months per year and therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional. Highland Wash joins with Smith Creek at Westward Avenue.

Smith Creek is tributary to San Gorgonio Creek, which is tributary to the Whitewater River.

Pershing Creek
Pershing Creek is a wide ephemeral drainage located east of Smith Creek that contains riparian and riverine resources and flows from north to south to cross perpendicular to the Project Site. Flows to Pershing Creek originate from north of I-10. In the area of the Project, Pershing Creek splits around an island approximately

0.24-acre in size of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub into two sets of active low flow channels with adjacent active floodplains. The Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is dominated by scale broom. The active low flow channels are approximately 10-inches wide in the Project area with a fine sandy bed and no vegetation.

Evidence of flows were identified by benches and ripples present in the project area. The active floodplain is on average 38-feet wide and bordered by short low terraces that are bordered by steep embankments that are roughly 20-feet high to the east and west of the creek. One mature eucalyptus tree (Eucalyptus species) on the far westerly bank is also within the Project area. The active floodplain is evidenced by a more sandy/pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as older drift, mud cracks, and early-stage vegetation of buckwheat and annual filarees (Erodium species). OHWM is approximately 10-inches and indicated by break in slope and changes in vegetative cover and sediment texture from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with silty soil and 95% cover of late-stage upland vegetation consisting of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer limit of the low terrace on the east side of the creek is characterized by a change in slope and higher vegetative density of buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction. The outer limit on the west side of the creek is characterized by a near-vertical incised channel bank.

Pershing Creek likely flows for less than 3 months per year and therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional. Pershing Creek merges with Smith Creek far downstream of the Project limits.
886
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 46
Existing Pipe Culverts under Westward Avenue
A total of six pipe culverts are currently located under Westward Avenue where Smith Creek, Pershing Creek and Highland Wash cross Westward Avenue. The culverts are metal pipes of varying diameters ranging from 18-inchesto 54-inches. The collective footprint of the pipes account for approximately 0.02 acre of the Project site. They are considered riverine resources. The existing pipe culverts will be left in place and remain functional after the Project is completed to continue conveying low flows. They were not included in the hydraulic modeling conducted for the Project (Appendix F) as a conservative measure. Therefore, these pipe culverts are not considered to be impacted by Project implementation.

MSHCP riverine resources of this Project are inclusive of areas that are also potentially jurisdictional (regulable) by the RWQCB as Waters of the State according to Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW as streambed according to California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. . According to the JD Report that is provided in Appendix B.8 of this Initial Study, the Project will result in direct, permanent impacts to 0.37-acre of CDFW/RWQCB jurisdiction and 0.09-acre of temporary impacts to CDFW/RWQCB jurisdiction (p. 6-1). Impacted resources consist of only non-wetland waters. CDFW/RWQCB jurisdiction represents Waters of the State and CDFW Streambed, which are coterminous in the Project area. Impacts to CDFW and RWQCB jurisdiction will require permits from these agencies; specifically, a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and a Waste Discharge Requirement permit from RWQCB. Based on the current definition of Waters of the U.S., the Project will not impact Waters of the U.S. and will therefore not require a Section 404 permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No riparian vegetation is present.

Permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources would result from the direct, permanent footprint of the Project that cannot be returned to pre-existing conditions and areas that must be maintained on an ongoing basis as well as temporary impacts within the temporary construction buffer which can be returned to pre-existing conditions around the permanent impact footprint.

The MSHCP Riverine features function as conveyance for storm water flows mostly during high storm events.

The historical importance of the Project drainages has been to convey sediment as well downstream into the Whitewater watershed. The sediment flows into the desert areas is an important source of sediment and sand needed for the aeolian and other natural processes that support sensitive species. Over time, the sediment conveyance in Pershing, Smith and Highland Creeks has been diminished due many compounding factors. Therefore, when looking at the impacts of the Project and the proposed RCB crossings, care was taken to consider the need to not significantly affect the sediment transfer along with flood flows with implementation of the Project. The functions and values of the Project drainage crossings and the surrounding upland areas include absorption and the gradual release of water into downstream areas. The topography and vegetation in the Project Site drainages also provide cover and corridors for the shelter and movement of wildlife.

Regarding sediment transport, the proposed RCBs and retention of existing pipe culverts within Westward Avenue will be such that sediment transport and wildlife movement functions and values will be retained. To arrive at the proposed RCB design, an iterative process was undertaken to achieve a design that would have an insignificant change in the water surface elevation and velocity upstream and downstream of the proposed RCB culverts as compared to the pre-project condition. The design will not improve nor worsen the existing 887
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 47
flow of sediment occurring in the Project area (NHC, p. 7). Therefore, if a rainfall event occurs that is large enough to transport sediment, the Project will not inhibit that from happening in the future post-construction condition. Where impacts are unavoidable, the design maintains the existing hydrologic regime including flood flows, and sediment transport. Based on the analysis by NHC, the Project effects on downstream functions will be insignificant and they will continue as they currently do, meaning, erosion or accretion that occurs outside of the Project within Highland Wash, Smith Creek, or Pershing Creek will not change as a result of the Project. Offsite erosion or accretions in said creeks are the result of other actions unrelated to the Project for which the City plans to address separately from this Project.

Impacts to jurisdictional resources resulting from Project implementation are presented below in Table F – Riparian/Riverine and Jurisdictional Impacts.

Table F– Riparian/Riverine and Jurisdictional Impacts
Name of Potentially
Jurisdictional Feature
Riparian/Riverine and CDFW/RWQCB
Permanent Impacts
(acres)
Temporary Impacts
(acres) Length (feet)
Highland Wash
(Creek Crossing No. 1)

0.1 0.01 394 / 61
Smith Creek
(Creek Crossing No. 2)

0.08 0.04 128 / 65
Pershing Creek
(Creek Crossing No. 3)

0.2 0.03 230 / 72
Total 0.37 0.09 748 / 187
Source: WSP(a), Table 2. Project site Riparian/Riverine Impacts CDFW/RWQCB jurisdiction and the Riparian/Riverine area are coterminus.

As shown in Table F, potentially jurisdictional features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine features would be impacted with Project implementation. According to the DBESP Report prepared for impacts to Riparian/Riverine resources that is in Appendix B.7 of this Initial Study, mitigation is required for impacts to Riparian/Riverine resources. Because jurisdictional resources are within the Riparian/Riverine, mitigation for one resource can also mitigate for the other. Thus, the Project will implement mitigation measure MM BIO-5 and place land into permanent conservation as mitigation for riparian/riverine and jurisdictional impacts. The City intends to purchase land or conserve and enhance existing city land within the Whitewater Watershed, along Smith Creek which would be placed into a conservation easement or have a deed restriction and protected in perpetuity with a non-wasting endowment. The land will be managed by a third-party land manager such as Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Rivers and Lands Conservancy (RLC) or Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD). The conservation land will contain similar habitat to the Project site and provide similar or superior function and habitat value. Currently, the Project site has relatively unvegetated, sandy bottom, riverine habitat. Any mitigation areas that contain riparian habitat would be considered superior habitat.
888
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 48
Permanent impacts will be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio (3 x 0.37 acre = 1.11 acres) and temporary impacts will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (2 x 0.09 acre = 0.18 acre). The total mitigation acreage should equal or surpass 1.3 acres. The primary method of mitigation will be offsite conservation and enhancement of City owned property located along Smith Creek. The City will place at least 1.3 acres into a Conservation Easement with an approved third-party conservation holder such as RCA, RLC or IERCD. Additionally, the City has committed to participating in a regional solution of the sediment transport function of the Smith Creek watershed. The intended outcome of this regional solution is to bring the various stakeholders in this watershed together to work on a sediment management strategy to ensure sediment is transported efficiently and effectively to support ecological resources. The City’s commitment to this regional solution will serve as providing rehabilitation mitigation for the overall impacts from this Project.

The project will also return temporary impact areas to their pre-existing contours and revegetate them with appropriate native species. The project will also mitigate and/or minimize impacts by following MSHCP Section

6.1.4 Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) (WSP(f), p. 14).

Through the conservation of biologically equivalent or superior land and the City’s participation in a regional solution to Smith Creek sediment transport functions, the Project would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.

MM BIO-5: Mitigation for Riparian/Riverine and Jurisdictional Impacts. In order to mitigate 0.37 acre of permanent impacts and 0.09 acre of temporary impacts to riparian/riverine waters and jurisdictional impacts to Waters of the State and CDFW Streambed, the City of Banning shall purchase land or conserve and enhance existing City-owned land that is within the Whitewater Watershed along Smith Creek, which would be placed in a conservation easement or deed restriction and protected in perpetuity with a non-wasting endowment. The land shall be managed by a third-party land manager such as Rivers and Lands Conservancy, Inland Empire Resource Conservation District, or Regional Conservation Authority. The amount of land preserved for permanent impacts will be based on a 3:1 ratio (3 x 0.37 acre = 1.11 acres) and for temporary impacts at a 2:1 ratio (2 x 0.09 acre = 0.18 acre) for a total mitigation area of no less than 1.3- acres. In addition, the City has committed to participating in a regional solution of the sediment transport function of the Smith Creek watershed. The intended outcome of this regional solution is to bring the various stakeholders in this watershed together to work on a sediment management strategy to ensure sediment is transported efficiently and effectively to support ecological resources. The City’s commitment to this regional solution will serve as providing rehabilitation mitigation for the overall impacts from this Project. The Project shall also return temporary impact areas to their pre-existing contours and revegetate them with appropriate native species. Project construction shall also follow MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices and MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines.

With implementation of the design of the RCB culverts to provide consistency in the duration and volume of water and sediment being transported after Project implement to existing conditions, as well as through 889
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 49
implementation of MM BIO-5 to provide land conservation in exchange for the permanent and temporary impacts, along with the restoration of temporary impact areas, impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Sources: WSP(a); WSP(c); WSP(f)
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. The site investigations conducted as part of the JD Report found no evidence of wetlands, as reported on Table C above. (WSP(g), p. 3-2). The aforementioned fairy shrimp sampling points are isolated depressional features that are not hydrologically connected to a jurisdictional drainage feature and are likely only ponded for a short duration of time. In addition, because none of the aforementioned fairy shrimp sampling points were observed to develop vernal pool vegetation parameters over the 2020-2021 survey period, no vernal pools are present in the Project (WSP(a), p. 21). Thus, the fairy shrimp sampling points were considered but not included in the delineation and are therefore not considered within potentially jurisdictional areas.

As discussed in Response IVb. and shown in Table F – Riparian/Riverine Impacts, Project implementation will result in temporary and permanent impacts to potentially jurisdictional features located in Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek that would be considered potentially jurisdictional by the RWQCB and CDFW, but do not support wetlands. Therefore, in addition to compliance with mitigation measure MM BIO-3 to address impacts to riverine and non-wetland jurisdictional impacts, the Project shall obtain regulatory permits from the RWQCB and CDFW prior to starting construction within any potentially jurisdictional areas. However, since no wetlands were identified in the Project footprint, impacts to wetlands is considered less than significant and no mitigation is needed.

Source: WSP(g)
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? Less than significant impact. The Project Site is located within The Pass Area Plan of the MSHCP. The Project Site is not located within a MSHCP criteria area cell, group, or linkage area. Therefore, no Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) or Joint Project Review (JPR) is required. (WSP(a), p. i.) There are no native wildlife nursery sites within proximity to the Project site. THere is no contemplated MSHCP Conservaiton areas near or adjacent to the Project alignment. The use of the extremely incised drainage channels makes it difficult for wildlife to move from upland areas into the drainages, but the Project’s RCB culvert design allows for multiple options for wildlife in the drainages to move through them to the other side.

Therefore, since there are no designed or planned areas for movement of wildlife, wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites on Site, and since the Project does include multiple box culverts so that wildlife can pass under the roadway, impacts to wildlife movement is considered less than significant.

Source: WSP(a)
890
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 50
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact. As shown in Table C – Vegetation Communities Present on the Project Site and on Figure 9 – Vegetation Communities, the Project Site includes vegetation communities that could potentially contain tree species. Additionally, one mature eucalyptus tree (Eucalyptus species) was observed on the far westerly bank of Pershing Creek that would be removed as part of Project implementation. (WSP(a), p. 12.)
City of Banning Municipal Code Section 17.32.060, “Removal or destruction of trees” is not applicable to capital projects. Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; BMC; WSP(a)
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. Because the City is a Permittee to the MSHCP, it must therefore 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). To measure the Project’s consistency with the MSHCP, the MSHCP Consistency Report was prepared along with focused surveys for burrowing owl, native endemic plants, and LAPM, which determined impacts would occur to Section 6.1.2 resources (Riparian/Riverine) and thus triggered the need for the DBESP Report to describe mitigation for said impacts.

The Project Site is not located within, nor adjacent to a MSHCP Conservation Area, which means the MSHCP did not plan for the Project Site to be placed into conservation in the future.

According to the DBESP Report, impacts to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP Riverine resources as shown in Table F – Jurisdictional and Riparian/Riverine Impacts. No surface water or sufficiently sized tracts of habitat are present, and therefore no riparian bird surveys were conducted, and they are not expected to occur (WSP(f), p. 7). The Riverine impacts from the Project will be mitigated pursuant to MM BIO-5 with the purchase and conservation of land that is within the Whitewater Watershed along Smith Creek, which would be placed in a conservation easement or deed restriction and protected in perpetuity with a non-wasting endowment. The land shall be managed by a third-party land manager such as RLC, IERCD, or RCA. The amount of land preserved for permanent impacts will be based on a 3:1 ratio (3 x 0.37 acre = 1.11 acres) and for temporary impacts at a 2:1 ratio (2 x 0.09 acre = 0.18 acre) for a total mitigation area of no less than 1.3-acres. In addition, the City has committed to participating in a regional solution of the sediment transport function of the Smith Creek watershed. The intended outcome of this regional solution is to bring the various stakeholders in this watershed together to work on a sediment management strategy to ensure sediment is transported efficiently and effectively to support ecological resources. The City’s commitment to this regional solution will serve as providing rehabilitation mitigation for the overall impacts from this Project. The Project shall also return temporary impact areas to their pre-existing contours and revegetate them with appropriate native species. 891
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 51
Project construction shall also follow MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices and MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines. Through implementation of mitigation, impacts to Section 6.1.2 MSHCP riverine resources will be less than significant.

As discussed in Response IVa, wet and dry fairy shrimp focused surveys were conducted in 10 inundated depressions on the Project Site (WSP(e)). As shown in Table E – Fairy Shrimp Survey Results and on Figure 13 – Fairy Shrimp Habitat, the common, unlisted versatile fairy shrimp was detected in one pool (Pool No. 9).

Because listed fairy shrimp of special concern were not found in any sampled ponds, no further action including mitigation is required for fairy shrimp. In addition, the fairy shrimp habitat was barren or dominated by non-native weedy plants and occurred in compacted soil in road ruts and other human alterations of the environment, which impeded drainage (WSP(f), p. 7). Over the course of the fairy shrimp surveys, no vernal pool indicators were observed to develop in the fairy shrimp sampling ponds (WSP(a), p. 21).

Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires assessments of sites that are in the designated survey area for narrow endemic plant species to be completed. As discussed in Response IVa and shown on Figure 12 – MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plan Survey Area, nearly the entire Project Site is within the MSHCP NEPSSA for Marvin’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya. Focused surveys were conducted for these species, which determined they are not present on the Project Site and no further action is required. Therefore, the proposed Project will not conflict with MSHCP Section 6.1.3.

Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP outlines the minimization of indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to a MSHCP Conservation Area. Because the Project Site is not located in proximity to a MSHCP Conservation Area, the Project will not conflict with MSHCP Section 6.1.4.

Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species depending upon the location of a given project. The Project Site is not located within an MSHCP-designated criteria area species survey area for plants or amphibians; therefore, no surveys are needed for these species. As discussed in Response IVa, the Project Site is within a mammal survey area for LAPM (refer to Figure 10 – LAPM Survey Results) and burrowing owl survey area (refer to Figure 11 – Burrowing Owl Survey Results); thus, focused surveys were conducted for these species (WSP(b), p. 2 and WSP(c), p. 4). The results of the surveys were negative for LAPM and burrowing owl and no additional surveys are necessary for LAPM; however, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl will be required as stated in MM BIO-2. Through implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will not conflict with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

The MSHCP lists standard best management practices (Appendix C) and guidelines to be implemented during project construction (Section 7.5.3) 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, staging, dust control, exotic plant control, and timing of construction. The Project applicant is required to implement measures from Appendix C and Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP. will address potential construction impacts to nesting birds and burrowing owl. Thus, with mitigation the proposed Project is consistent with MSHCP Appendix C and Section 7.5.3.
892
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 52
Therefore, through implementation of Appendix C and Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP as well as mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5, the proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted conservation plan and impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

Sources: WSP(a); WSP(b), WSP(c), WSP(d), WSP(e), WSP(f), WSP(g) 893
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: WSP MSHCP Report
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 9a - Vegetation Communities
894
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: WSP MSHCP Report
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 9b - Vegetation Communities
895
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: WSP MSHCP Report
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 9c - Vegetation Communities
896
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: WSP LAPM
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 10 - Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Results
897
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: WSP BUOW Report
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 11 - Burrowing Owl Survey Results
898
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: WSP Rare Plant Report
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 12 - MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plants Survey Area
899
H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx Map created 16 Jul 2024 Source: WSP Fairy Shrimp Report
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Figure 13 - Fairy Shrimp Habitat
900
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 60
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 in this section is based on the findings in the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California, which was prepared by Applied EarthWorks Inc. (AE) and is included as Appendix C of this Initial Study (hereinafter referred to as “Phase I CRA”). As part of the Phase I CRA, AE conducted archaeological literature and records searches on September 16, 2019 at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at the University of California, Riverside. The EIC is the official cultural resource records repository for Riverside County. AE reviewed maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity within a one mile radius around the Project Site (the Study Area). AE archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the area of potential effect (APE) to observe and note the condition of the Project Site on September 4, 2020, March 31, 2022, and April 3, 2024. The APE for the Project is limited to the Project footprint in which direct effects may occur, as shown on Figure 1-2, Project location on USGS Beaumont 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle on page 3 of the Phase I CRA (located in Appendix C). The survey was completed with 15-meter east-west parallel pedestrian transects moving northward through the APE. (AE(a), pp. 28, 30, 31.) The EIC records indicated 16 previous investigations have been conducted and documented in the Project Study Area. Four of these studies specifically involved portions of the APE, as such, 100 percent of the APE has been previously studied. Additionally, one of the previous investigations conducted a sensitivity assessment for archaeological resources and concluded the Project Site is within an area of low archaeological sensitivity. (AE(a), p. 22.)
The previous cultural resources investigations conducted within the Study Area identified a total of 44 cultural resources have been identified; eight archaeological resources that all date to the historic period and 36 builtenvironment resources. The eight archaeological resources that date to the historic period include: one isolated concrete chute remnant, three water-conveyance systems, two refuse scatters, foundations, and a segment of the old Banning Trade Route/6th Street. The 36 built environment resources consist of historical houses, commercial buildings, and a segment of the Union Pacific Railroad. (AE(a), p. 23.) Two historic period resources, Sites 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) and 33-013778 are located within the Project’s APE. (AE(a), p. 23.) 901
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 61
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant impact. The determination of National Register of Historic Property (NRHP) eligibility for cultural resources is made if a historic property meets one or more of the four NRHP criteria of historical significant; possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association (36 CFR

60.4); and, in general, it must be at least 50 years old 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; 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 have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

If a cultural resource is at least 50 years old, meets one or more of these specific criteria of historical significance, and is considered a good representative of a significant historical theme or pattern, the historic property is eligible for nomination to the NRHP. (AE(a), p. 5.) For purposes of CEQA, lead agencies determine whether a project will have a significant impact on historical resources. Historical resources in CEQA terminology are analogous to historic properties in NHPA terminology.

That is, a cultural resource shall be considered “historically significant” if it meets the requirements for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under any one of the following criteria (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], § 15064.5):

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

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

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

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

One historic-period archeological resource, Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) and one built environment resource, 33-013778, are within the Project’s APE. Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) is a large historic watercontrol complex consisting of 39 features,some of which are mapped within the Project’s APE. Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) wasformally evaluated in a prior cultural resource investigation and recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR (AE(a), p. 25). Built environment resource Site 33-013778 was a large farm/ranch complex, which included five foundations, two Craftsman structures and a barn in 2004. As documented in a prior cultural resource investigation, the five foundations are located on the western-most portion of Site 33-013778, which according to the records search, is within the Project’s APE. The remaining 902
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 62
resources, including the Craftsman structures and the barn, are located outside of the Project’s APE and have been replaced by the Mt. San Jacinto College campus at the southeast corner of Sun Lakes Boulevard. and Sunset Avenue. The portion of Site 33-013778 within the Project’s APE site has been evaluated formally for listing on the CRHR and NRHP and recommended ineligible for nomination to the NRHP and CRHR in a prior cultural resource investigation. AE’s field archaeologist reidentified Site 33-013778 and Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) during the 2024 survey. No other cultural resources were identified during the survey (AE(a), p. 31.)
In addition to the EIC research, AE also reviewed historical maps. Specifically, AE consulted the 1901 San Jacinto 30-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map, the 1943 and 1956 Banning 15-minute USGS topographic quadrangle maps, and the 1953 Beaumont 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map to assess historical land uses within the Study Area. The 1953 Beaumont 7.5- minute USGS topographic quadrangle map exhibits two houses and outbuildings outside and to the south of the APE on the corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue/Sun Lakes Boulevard. The same structures are also on the 1956 Banning 15-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map. No structures, roads, or other features of historical interest are shown within, or in the vicinity of, the APE on any of the reviewed historical maps. (AE(a), p. 25.)
The Phase 1 CRA noted that ground surface throughout portions of the APE has been disturbed by road grading, gas pipelines, and historic ranch activity. Most of the APE is overgrown with weeds and annual vegetation resulting in poor ground visibility (0–25 percent). The existing unpaved segment of Westward Avenue, and multiple buried pipelines within the APE as well as land use for ranching are all indicative of significant previous ground disturbance. Although the maximum depth of previous subsurface disturbance is unknown, the lack of known prehistoric resources within 1 mile of the APE hasled other investigators to assign a low archaeological sensitivity to the APE (AE(a), p. 8).

Because the two historical archaeological sites documented within the Project’s APE (i.e., 33-013779 (CA-RIV7544) and 33-013788) were previously evaluated and recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, it is concluded that intact and significant unknown historic properties (NRHP-eligible) or historical resources (CRHR-eligible) are unlikely to be present. Additionally, since the Project site has been previously disturbed by road grading, gas pipelines and/or historic ranch activity there is a low likelihood that intact significant historical resources are buried. (AE(a), p. 32.) 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. The historic-period archaeological Site 33-013779 (CARIV-7544) and Site 33-013788 are discussed above in Response Va. 903
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 63
Geologic data indicate a mixture of alluvial soils within the APE with some potential for buried archaeological deposits. However, all other archaeological sensitivity indicators reflect low potential for buried archaeological resources. Past disturbances from buried pipelines, road grading, and ranching/farming have disturbed the APE. The records search conducted as part of the Phase I CRA did not identify any documented prehistoric resources within a one-mile radius of the Project’s APE. Additionally, one of the previous cultural resources investigations (i.e., Tang et al. 2004) that involved the Project’s APE conducted a sensitivity assessment for archaeological resources and concluded the Project’s APE is within an area of low archaeological sensitivity (AE(a), p. 23). Although the potential to encounter intact and significant buried archaeological deposits is unlikely, the Project shall implement mitigation measure MM CR-1 to reduce impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MM CR-1: Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery. Prior to the start of construction, the City shall enlist a qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities. The City shall also work with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to develop an agreement for a Tribal Monitor prior to the start of construction. In the event archaeological resources are discovered during Project construction that are not part of Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) and Site 33-013788, all ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered archaeological 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 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 in 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 California Native American Heritage Commission (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 less than significant.

Sources: HSC 7050.5; PRC 5097.98
904
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 64
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. The proposed Project, which is the construction and operation of Sun Lakes Boulevard, is an infrastructure project. As an infrastructure project, the majority of impacts will be short-term with only infrequent, routine maintenance occurring post-construction. 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 24 months. Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for grading, 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 251,270 gallons of diesel fuel and 8,985 gallons of gasoline.

Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant 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 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and 3.0 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.

Energy used during operation of the Project would primarily result from electricity usage from the proposed street lighting and from infrequent maintenance vehicles. The proposed street light electricity consumption was estimated in CalEEMod using the default electricity rate for parking lot lighting of 0.35 Kilowatthours/square feet per year. Based on the street light electricity use from CalEEMod, the estimated electricity consumption is 154 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. This represents a negligible demand on City of Banning 905
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 65
Electric Utility energy resources and would not operate in a manner that is wasteful or inefficient. Based on the latest data available from the California Energy Commission (CEC), City of Banning produced approximately 151.55 million kWh in 2022.

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.

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, the Project is an infrastructure improvement project and as such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact will occur.

Source: Project Description
906
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 66
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 analysis in this section is based on findings and recommendations from the Geotechnical Pavement Investigation, Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment, South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue, Banning California which was prepared by Geocon West, Inc. and is included as Appendix E.1 of this Initial Study (hereinafter referred to as “Geotechnical Investigation”). The Geotechnical Investigation includes the results of: subsurface investigation with borings to depths of 6.5 and 26.5 feet below existing ground surface in areas of the planned improvements and laboratory tests; scour evaluation; seismic evaluation; and recommendations for new pavements, earthwork, utility trench backfill, foundation recommendations for RCB culverts, and additional field work and laboratory testing. (Geocon, pp. 3, 5–21.) 907
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 67
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.

Less than significant impact. The Project Site is located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault, known as the San Gorgonio Pass Fault, according to the California Department of Conservation. The Project Site is also approximately 1 mile northeast of a Riverside County Fault Zone. Because the Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone or a Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone, and it is not located on any known active earthquake fault trace, the potential for ground rupture due to active faulting on the Project Site is considered to be low. (Geocon, p. 6.)
Additionally, due to the nature of the proposed Project it does not pose a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death because the Project does not propose any habitable structures and will be designed and constructed in accordance with Caltrans, City standard specifications, and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, potential substantial adverse impacts resulting from the rupture of a known earthquake fault are considered less than significant.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR; Geocon; DOC
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.) Because the Project is not located within a fault zone, a fault rupture hazard analysis is not required. A seismic evaluation was conducted as part of the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation using Caltrans’ Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS) Online web tool (V3.1.0). The results of the ARS Online provide recommended design response spectrum for use in the Project’s seismic design recommendations. Because the Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable Caltrans and City standards and incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, potential substantial adverse impacts resulting from strong seismic groundshaking 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 low liquefaction susceptibility (GP, Exhibit V-4; GP DEIR, Exhibit III-14.).

The subsurface investigation conducted as part of the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation did not encounter groundwater during the investigation. Historical well data immediately in the vicinity of the Project Site indicated that the shallowest groundwater levels were measured at depth ranging from 243 908
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 68
and 271 feet below ground surface. (Geocon, p. 4.) 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 Geotechnical Investigation in addition to standard engineering and construction protocols from Caltrans and the City to address ground failure/liquefaction. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Geocon; GP; GP DEIR
iv) Landslides?
No 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.) No topographical features that could potentially create landslides are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, no impact will occur.

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 soil offsite.

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
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 located in an area of low liquefaction susceptibility; thus, 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 909
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 69
canals, sewers and drainage improvements are generally sensitive to the effects of subsidence and may be damaged if subsidence occurs. 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 Geotechnical Investigation, 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 conditions can have harmful effects 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 Geotechnical Investigation found that the geologic material within the Project area consists of undocumented fill (afu), Holocene-age alluvium (Qa), and Pleistocene-age alluvial fan of the San Gorgonio Pass (Qf) deposits. (Geocon, p. 4.) These are granular soils and, as indicated in the GP DEIR, the potential for expansion ranges from very low to moderately low. Since the Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable Caltrans and City standards and incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, potential substantial direct or indirect risks from expansive soil will be less than significant.

Sources: Geocon; GP DEIR
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
910
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 70
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The analysis in this section is based on findings and recommendations from the Paleontological Memorandum:

Constraints Analysis for Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment, Riverside County, California, (hereinafter referred to as “Paleontological Memorandum”) prepared by AE, which is included as Appendix E.2 of this Initial Study.

The Paleontological Memorandum 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.

The County has developed its own guidelines that establish detailed protocols for the assessment of the paleontological sensitivity of a project area and outline measures to follow in order to mitigate adverse impacts to known or unknown fossil resources during project development (i.e., Riverside County General Plan, Multipurpose Open Space Element, Policies OS 19.6 – 19.9). The County assigns the paleontological sensitivity of a geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) to one of four categories—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 Project Site. High A (Ha) sensitivity is based on the occurrence of fossils that 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), pp. 1-3.) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Geology at the Project Site is characterized by Holoceneage alluvial deposits across the ground surface. Holocene-age deposits, particularly those less than 5,000 years old, are typically too young for the fossilization process to occur. Therefore, the Holocene-age alluvial deposits across the ground surface of the Project Site are unlikely to preserve fossils. However, these deposits are underlain by older Holocene- and Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits, which have yielded significant fossils throughout Southern California from the coastal areas to the inland valleys. (AE(b), pp. 3-4.) AE conducted a record search of paleontological resources at the Project Site. 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), as the surficial Holocene-age alluvial deposits overlie very shallow Pleistocene deposits with recorded vertebrate fossils throughout Southern California. (AE(b), pp. 4-5.) Since the proposed Project will entail excavations to depths greater than three feet, and especially at the dry gully crossings, there is a high likelihood of encountering paleontological resources in previously undisturbed sediments of Middle to Late Pleistocene ages. Therefore, in order to reduce potential direct or indirect impacts to unique paleontological resources or sites 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 resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP), 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 incorporated.

MM GEO-1: Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). To educate construction crews about the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered along 911
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 71
the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, prior to the start of the construction, the City of Banning shall retain a professional paleontologist (the “Project Paleontologist”) to prepare a Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The Paleontological 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 WEAP to the construction contractor and each of the construction crews working on the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project during a preconstruction meeting. The Paleontological 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 Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project. This training may be conducted concurrent with other preconstruction training (e.g., biological resources, safety).

MM GEO-2: Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist (retained under MM GEO-1) shall prepare and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall describe the monitoring required during excavations that extend into locations of areas deemed to have a high paleontological resource potential, which include older Holocene-age and Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits. 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:

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 PRIMP prepared per MM GEO-2. 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. 912
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 72

2. Fossil Preparation and Curation. The PRIMP (MM GEO-2) 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 fossil specimens 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 activities (and curation of fossils if necessary) for the Sun Lakes Extension Project, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a final report documenting the WEAP (MM GEO-1) and outlining the results of the PRIMP (MM GEO-2). The report shall include discussion of the location, duration, and methods of monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated.

Source: AE(b)
913
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 73
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:

The focus of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis is to evaluate the impacts of GHG. GHG like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases are responsible for trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere, leading to global warming and climate change. For analysis purposes, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated because these gases are the primary contributors to GHG from development.

GHGs 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 emissions from fuel usage by construction equipment and construction-related activities, such as construction worker trips, for the Project. The CalEEMod estimate does not analyze emissions from construction-related electricity or natural gas. Construction-related electricity and natural gas emissions vary based on the amount of electric power used during construction and other unknown factors which make them too speculative to quantify. The results of the GHG analysis for construction equipment are shown in Table G – Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions.
914
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 74
Table G – Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions
Year Metric Tons per year (MT/yr)
Total CO2 Total CH4 Total N2O Total CO2E
2023 1,129.57 0.29 0.03 1,146.84
2024 1,238.34 0.32 0.04 1,257.15
2023 108.18 0.03 0.00 109.81
Total 2,476.09 0.64 0.07 2,513.80
Amortized1 83.79
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.

Table G indicates that an estimated 2,513.80 MTCO2E will occur from Project construction equipment over the course of the estimated 24-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 in Table G.

CalEEMod estimates the operational GHG emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage for each land use type. Electricity and natural gas used in buildings is typically generated at an off-site power plant which indirectly generates GHG emissions. As a roadway infrastructure project, the Project’s energy use results in indirect GHG emissions from the proposed street lighting and those GHG emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the default electricity rate for parking lot lighting. Utility-specific carbon intensity information from the City of Banning Electric Utility was used. As shown on Table H – Total Project-Related GHG Emissions, using the emissions quantified above, the total GHG emissions generated from the Project is approximately 105.66 MTCO2E/yr, which includes construction-related emissions amortized over a typical project life of 30 years.

Table H – Total Project-Related GHG Emissions
Source Metric Tons per year (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E
Amortized Construction (30 years) -- -- -- 83.79
Operational Energy (lighting) 21.73 0.00 0.00 21.87
Total GHG Emissions 21.73 0.00 0.00 105.66
Source: WEBB(a), Table 5 – Total Project-Related GHG Emissions Note: Emissions reported as zero are rounded and not necessarily equal to zero.

The total GHG emissions from the Project do not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of level of 3,000 MTCO2E/yr for non-industrial projects. Due to the estimated amount of emissions from Project construction and the proposed street light electricity usage as well as the negligible operational emissions from infrequent maintenance vehicles, the proposed Project will not generate GHG emissions that exceed the screening threshold.
915
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 75
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 roadway and drainage improvements, it is not considered a significant source of operational GHG emissions. The roadway improvements are consistent with the City’s Circulation Element in the General Plan. There are no applicable plans, policies, or regulations for smaller infrastructure improvements such as the proposed Project. The Project will not result in any changes to the existing land use patterns within the Project area and its construction and operation does not generate significant amounts of GHG; therefore, the Project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the reduction in GHG emissions. Impacts will be less than significant.

Source: WEBB(a)
916
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 76
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 onequarter 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. 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 (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). 917
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 77
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 is 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 chemicals to be stored at the site for short 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 policies regarding storage and transportation of hazardous waste. Post construction, only infrequent and routine maintenance activities would occur, which would also be regulated by Federal, State, and local policies. Nonetheless, the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database identified a hazards material cleanup site, Community Day School No. 1 site (ID: 33010034), located approximately three-quarter of a mile to the north of the Project Site. As of February 14, 2002, DTSC determined that there is no further action. (DTSC-A.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Sources: Project Description; DTSC-A
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. Across the southeast corner of the proposed Project Site is home to the San Gorgonio Pass Campus, which is one of the four Mt. San Jacinto College campuses. (MSJC). As previously discussed in Response IXa, during Project construction hazardous materials and substances would be introduced to the Project Site. Hazardous 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 would be limited to the Project Site. Therefore, students of the San Gorgonio Pass Campus would not be exposed hazardous materials found at the Project Site during construction.

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 less than significant. 918
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 78
Source: MSJC
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? 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-B.) Thus, because the proposed Project Site and it’s 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-B
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 four 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 roadway 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 Site is currently an undeveloped dirt road between South Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. In its current condition, the Project Site is gated and does not provide vehicular access from South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue. Construction and operation of the Project, a planned roadway, would provide vehicular connectivity and access. Additionally Sun Lakes Boulevard, a designated Arterial Highway, could reasonably be expected to be used as part of an evacuation route in the event of an emergency.

Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant.

Source: GP
919
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 79
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No impact. The Project Site is located north of the City’s High Fire Hazard Zone, within which relief is minimal and hardscape (e.g., concrete, asphalt, and structures) and landscaping vegetation predominate. (GP, Exhibit V-10.) The proposed Project is the construction and operation of Sun Lakes Boulevard, which would not likely aid the spread of wildland fires and could serve as a fire break in the event of a fire. 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, the Project has no impact.

Source: GP
920
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 80
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. Since the Project will disturb more than one acre of land, 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. 921
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 81
The Project will provide drainage improvements currently not provided by the existing roadway. Said improvements will convey storm water runoff to catch basins that will be fitted with City-approved filters to capture debris and treat post-construction runoff generated by the roadway. The storm drain catch basins with filtersin and of themselves will not contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, but rather they are expected to improve downstream water quality because of Project implementation. Through Project design and compliance with existing regulations related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, impacts will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; CGP; NHC
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 infiltration of runoff, direct precipitation, subsurface inflow, and artificial recharge. The Banning Canyon area receives water from percolation of canyon flows through 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 Project Site is not a groundwater recharge site. Because the Project is a transportation improvement, implementation of the proposed Project will not result in an increase in the use or production of groundwater.

For these reasons, the Project will not affect existing groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge in a manner that would impede management of the groundwater basin. Therefore, Project impacts will be 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:

This discussionsin Responses Xc)i through Xc)iv are based, in part, on the Technical Memorandum – High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Associated with the Updated Sun Lakes Boulevard Improvement Project (included as Appendix F to this Initial Study). The Project Site is located within the Banning MDP and existing drainage patterns generally occur in a north-west to south-east direction. The Project Site is subjected to large tributary areas north of I-10 draining via MDP facilities to several existing culverts under I-10 and subsequently under the railroad. Specifically MDP Line J – Highland Springs Channel, Line I – Smith Creek Channel, and Line K – West Pershing Channel as shown on Figure 14 – Existing MDP Facilities.
8 (WEBB(d.).) As discussed in the Project Description and shown on Figure 6a – Project Components West Extent and Figure 6b – Project Components East Extent, the Project crosses Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek. The Project’s drainage facilities at these crossings have been sized to mimic existing 8 Figure is on page 56.
922
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 82
flow conditions (i.e., existing water surface elevation) and to not exacerbate the existing, i.e. without Project, sediment transport condition.
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than significant impact.

During construction, the Project has the potential to result in downstream erosion impacts. The creeks and substrates in the Banning area do not lend to siltation concerns, therefore siltation impacts would not be a concern and are not discussed further. Rather, the analysis below focuses on the hydrologic regime changes related to the Project and resultant impacts to sediment transport (i.e. sand sources) and erosion impacts.

During construction, the Project will implement and comply with existing regulations for the minimization of erosion as outlined in the Statewide CGP through implementation of a SWPPP. Therefore, short-term erosion impacts from construction activities are less than significant due to compliance with the existing water quality regulations.

The operation of the Project as a roadway crossing over the creeks/drainages could result in erosion impacts and negatively affect sediment transport. However the design of the Project has been to limit the amount of these impacts over the long term by ensuring that the design of the culvert crossings are wide enough and set at the correct grades to not trigger further erosional impacts in the local drainage systems affected by the Project.

As previously discussed in Threshold IV, Biological Resources, sediment transport through the Project creeks east towards Coachella Valley is an important component to maintaining sand dune habitat for sensitive desert species. Because of concerns related to sediment transport effects, a technical memorandum was prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) for the Project entitled, High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Associated with the Updated Sun Lakes Boulevard Improvement Project (included as Appendix F to this Initial Study). The purpose of the technical memorandum was to perform a qualitative assessment of changes in sediment transport potential of a given creek segment through comparison of computed flow velocities, pre-and post-project, under a given flow condition. The intent of the NHC analysis (Appendix F) was to determine if velocities in the various creek segments upstream of the proposed Project are relatively unchanged in the post project condition compared to the existing condition, and if that change was negligible, then the likelihood is that the Project-related impacts to sediment transport (and downstream scour and incising) are minimal.

As documented in the NHC technical memorandum, the existing Westward Avenue has two concretelined dip crossings (or, Arizona low-flow crossings) located at the confluence of Smith Creek and Highland Wash and at Pershing Creek, which currently act as grade controls to the Smith Creek/Highland Wash and Pershing Creek. Downstream of existing Westward Avenue, Smith Creek/Highland Wash and Pershing Creek are incised and demonstrate scour effects under current conditions. Scour can occur during high flow events due to sediment trapping upstream of flow barriers such as undersized culverts located upstream. The NHC analysis determined that the scour situation currently occurring downstream of Westward Avenue would worsen if the Project resulted in slower flows(i.e. decreased velocities) than the existing condition.

The Project includes the construction and operation of three separate sets of multiple RCBs in order to allow flows to continue underneath the proposed roadway through Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek. As documented in the NHC analysis, the design of the RCBs allows for the velocities not to slow down to the point where sediment is deposited above the RCBs, and keep the velocities consistent with existing conditions so that downstream scour/erosion will also not be exacerbated. 923
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 83
Flows within the Project creeks, which are termed alluvial channels, typically carry sediment in concentrations that increase with flow rate. The ability of flow to move sediment as it passes downstream is termed its sediment transport capacity. Hydraulic properties, particularly flow velocity, and bed material properties, such as median grain size, determine the sediment transport capacity of a given river reach. (NHC, pp. 6-7).

Results of the NHC qualitative analysis suggest that the proposed design of the three sets of RCBs will result in minimal changes to existing upstream flow velocities in each of the creeks. There would be a local increase in velocity within the RCBs themselves; however, that is to be expected since the RCBs are concrete-lined and the increased speed will assist in keeping the crossings clear of deposition during flood events (NHC, p. 8). The analysis concludes: “Comparison of the provided hydraulic modeling results indicates that there would likely be minimal sediment transport impacts associated with the current crossing improvement plans. Hydraulic conditions upstream of all three of the proposed crossings are very comparable under pre- and post-project scenarios” (NHC, p. 13). Because the upstream conditions are very comparable between the existing and proposed conditions, downstream conditions will also be comparable.

Therefore, through the design of the RCBs to minimize post-construction effects to existing sediment transport rates as demonstrated in the technical memorandum (Appendix F), and implementation of existing regulations for construction-phase activities, the Project’s impacts to downstream erosion and siltation on- or off-site will be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.

Sources: Project Description; CGP; NHC
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. Stormwater runoff on the Project Site currently flows into existing drainages or percolates into the undeveloped dirt area. The Project’s proposed crossings at Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek will ultimately be sized, shaped, and designed to mimic the existing downstream flow conditions (velocity and durations) and the size of the planned RCB culverts have taken into consideration the need to allow for sediment transport as well. The current design does not exacerbate the existing sediment transport condition (NHC, p. 13). The roadway will introduce new impervious areas including the travel lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and curb and gutters. Once the Project is complete, all runoff on the roadway would be conveyed into catch basins with City-approved filters to capture debris and treat post-construction runoff generated by the roadway. Therefore, through Project design and compliance with the water quality regulations discussed in Response Xa, Project impacts regarding erosion or siltation or an increase in surface runoff that would result in on- or off-site flooding will be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; CGP; NHC
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 storm drain lines located under the sidewalks on both north and south sides of the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension. The storm drains disconnect at the major utility crossings and at the street intersections. Catch basins will be placed at the low points of the street and at the downstream end of each storm drain to collect and convey the street 924
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 84
flow to the underground pipe for storage and infiltration. 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.

Sources: Project Description; NHC
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 06065C0816G, which indicates that the Project Site is not within the 100-year flood hazard area. (FEMA.) According to the Hydraulic Analysis for Sun Lakes Blvd. Extension, City of Banning, Technical Memorandum, the Project’s proposed improvements to the Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek drainage crossings have sufficient capacity to convey both interim and ultimate stormwater flows in the Project Area. (NHC.) The Project’s curb, gutters, and catch basins have been designed to handle up to a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Because the Project incorporates adequatelysized drainage facilities that will mimic the existing drainage patterns, flood flows would not be impeded or redirected. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; FEMA;NHC
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than significant impact. 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). The GP identifies three flood hazards in the City’s area: flash flooding through natural channels; ponding, with flows impeded by man-made obstructions; and sheet flooding across the alluvial fans upon which most of the City’s development is currently located. (GP, p. V-27.) Although the proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard extension will cross Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek, which have the potential to flash flood, flash floods are not expected to release pollutants because the Hydraulic Analysis for Sun Lakes Blvd. Extension, City of Banning, Technical Memorandum, concluded that the Project’s proposed drainage crossings have sufficient capacity to convey both interim and ultimate stormwater flows in the Project Area. Further, the Project includes catch basins with RWQCB-approved inserts to trap pollutants generated by the proposed roadway prior to them entering the watershed. 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 of Banning 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 oscillations 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.

There are no such bodies of water in the immediate Project Site vicinity; therefore, there is no risk for the release of pollutants due to Project inundation by seiche would occur. 925
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 85
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; NHC
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 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. The Project will include catch basins with Cityapproved filters to capture debris and treat post-construction runoff generated by the roadway. Through implementation of a SWPPP during construction and [Project design features], Project implementation is consistent with the requirements of the Basin Plan and will not conflict with or obstruct its implementation.

The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the Cabazon Storage Unit within the San Gorgonio Pass Groundwater Subbasin (Basin No. 7-021.04). 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) for the entire subbasin that includes the Cabazon Storage Unit. The GSP was approved by California Department of Water Resources on October 26, 2023. The goal of GSPs is to achieve sustainable groundwater basins by 2042. The GSP describes two future projects to benefit the Cabazon Storage Unit. Specifically, Project #4 New Pipeline with Additional Imported Water Spreading in the Cabazon Storage Unit in the vicinity north of I-10 and the existing Robertson’s Ready Mix Quarry site in Banning and Project #6 New Imported Colorado River Aqueduct Spreading in the Cabazon Storage Unit (Phase 2) in the vicinity of the San Jacinto Tunnel east portal, just south of Cabazon. (GSP, pp. 6-9, 6-15.) Because the GSP does not identify the Project Site as the location part of future GSP projects, impacts to a sustainable groundwater plan are less than significant.

Sources: Project Description, GSP
926
Map created Sept.15, 2016. H:\2020\20-0126\GIS\ArcGIS Pro\IS 2024 Bio\IS 2024 Bio.aprx County of San Bernardino, Maxar
0 I

0.5 1 Miles
Existing Line J
10' x 8' RCB
Existing Line I
(2) 10' x 10' RCB
Existing Line K
(2) 10' x 10' RCB
Existing Banning Estates
48" RCP
Existing Line O
18" to 24" RCP
Proposed Sun Lakes Blvd. Extension
Legend
Existing Minor Facilities
Existing Major Facilities
Temporary Impact Boundary
18" 18" 30"
24" I-10

BOBCAT RD

HIGHLAND HOME DR

SUN LAKES BLVD

SUNSET AVE
I-10
Figure 14 - Existing MDP Facilities
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
927
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 87
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?
No 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 proposed Project is construction of a Circulation Element Arterial Roadway.

The Project Site and the areas to its north and south are vacant and undeveloped; there are two established residential neighborhoods at its west and east ends. Due to the Project Site’s existing undeveloped condition and the presence of gates, there is no direct connection between these neighborhoods. Implementation of the proposed Project will provide access to nearby areas including the two established residential communities. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Source: Project Description
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 proposed Project involves the expansion of Sun Lakes Boulevard between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. This roadway is a planned Arterial Highway and is designed in conformance with the City’s Circulation Element. Thus, the Project, which is implementing a portion of the City’s Circulation Element, 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
928
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 88
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 geologic 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 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 uses 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 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, the Project Site is not within one of these zones, and is therefore not targeted for 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 Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2, where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or that a high likelihood for their presence exists, is located in the eastern portion of the City along the alluvial fan of the San Gorgonio River that lies southeast 929
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 89
of the Banning Bench, north and 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 XIa, 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
930
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 90
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:

The analysis in this section is based on the findings of the Noise Analysis Report, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension, Banning, CA, prepared by dBF Associates, Inc., which is included as Appendix G of this Initial Study (hereinafter referred to as “Noise Study”). The Noise Study uses the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 to estimate traffic noise levels, based on peak-hour traffic volume, average estimated vehicle speed, and estimated vehicle mix, i.e., percentage of cars, medium trucks, heavy trucks, buses and motorcycles.

Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound typically associated with human activity, which interferes with or disrupts normal activities. Constant noise levels are 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. (dBF, p. 7.) Since community noise fluctuates over time, a single measure called Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is used to describe time-varying character of community noise. The Leq is the energy-averaged Aweighted 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. (dBF, p. 8.) Sound levels caused by line sources (i.e., variable or moving sound sources such as traffic) generally decrease at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dBA when the distance from the road is doubled, depending on the ground 931
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 91
surface hardness between the source and receiving property. The model assumed “hard soil” propagation conditions, which corresponds to a drop off rate of approximately 3 dBA per doubling distance. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in the model.

Therefore, the modeling effort is considered a worst-case representation of the roadway noise. (dBF, p. 12.) 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. 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, excavators, graders, rubber tired dozers, scrapers, pavers and rollers, and from a worker-related increase in traffic in the vicinity of the Project Site. Maximum noise levels (Lmax) associated the construction equipment expected to be used ranges from 80 dBA Lmax at 50 feet to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Once construction is complete, the Project would produce noise from vehicles using the roadway. Sensitive receptors are residences at the west and east ends of the Project Site and the Mt. San Jacinto College San Gorgonio Pass Campus at the southeast end of the Project Site.

The Project Site is located within Banning and the unincorporated territory of Riverside County, and is adjacent to the City of Beaumont (to the southwest). Construction noise standards for these jurisdictions are summarized below.
• Banning Code of Ordinances Chapter 8.44 Noise. According to Section 8.44.085, sound emanating from capital improvement projects of a governmental agency or maintenance; and repair of public properties by a governmental agency are exempt. (BMC.)
• Riverside County Ordinance No. 847 Regulating Noise. According to Section 2, sound emanating from facilities owned or operated by or for a governmental agency; capital improvement projects of a governmental agency; or maintenance; and repair of public properties are among the noise sources exempt from the provisions of Ordinance No. 847. (Ord. 847.) • Beaumont Code of Ordinances Chapter 9.02 Noise. According to Section 9.2.100, sound emanating from capital improvement projects of a governmental agency; maintenance and repair of public properties by a governmental agency; utility and street repairs, street sweepers, garbage services, emergency response warning noises, emergency generators and fire alarm systems; and other public/governmental services or operations including, but not limited to trains and railway or airplanes and helicopter machinery, equipment or vehicles are exempt. (BCO.) Because the proposed Project is a capital improvement project and sound emanating from capital improvement projects is exempt in all three agencies in which Project-generated construction noise is likely to be heard, Project construction will not exceed the noise standards established by Banning, Riverside County, or Beaumont.
932
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 92
Regarding operational noise impacts from the Project, (i.e., noise generated once construction is complete), the City’s GP Plan Noise Element land use compatibility thresholds for community noise environments is shown in Table I - City of Banning Noise Thresholds, below. The Banning Noise Element does not provide guidance for undeveloped or vacant land.

Table I – City of Banning Noise Thresholds
Land Use
Highest Normally
Acceptable Noise
Level
Highest Conditionally
Acceptable Noise Level
Single-Family Residential 55 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL
Commercial 65 dBA CNEL 72.5 dBA CNEL
School 65 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL
Industrial/Manufacturing 70 dBA CNEL 75 dBA CNEL
Source: Appendix G, Table 2
The Riverside County General Plan Noise Element identifies noise levels of 75 dBA CNEL as Normally Acceptable for industrial land uses and noise levels up to 80 dBA CNEL as Conditionally Acceptable. Likewise, the Riverside County Noise Element has not provided guidance for undeveloped or vacant land. (dBF, pp. 9-

10.)
The Beaumont General Plan Safety Element identifies the noise thresholds for single family residential and commercial land uses shown below in Table J- City of Beaumont Noise Threshold.

Table J – City of Beaumont Noise Threshold
Land Use
Desirable Maximum
Noise Level
Maximum Acceptable
Noise Level
Single-Family Residential 55 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL
Commercial 65 dBA CNEL 75 dBA CNEL
Source: Appendix G, Table 3
The Project Site is located primarily along the existing unpaved roadway ROW, with existing residences to the west and east, and a community-college campus at the southeastern intersection of Sun Lakes Boulevard/Sunset Avenue. Land to the north and south of the Project Site are currently vacant and undeveloped. As shown on Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, these areas are currently designated for future residential, open space, and agricultural uses. However, as discussed in the Surrounding Land Uses and Setting section on page 6 of this Initial Study, the City has received development applications and released the Draft EIR for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan and related entitlements for public review, which, if approved, would ultimately designate this area for industrial and commercial uses as 933
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 93
shown on Figure 8 – Proposed Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan. Since this development application is pending with the City, the Noise Report evaluated the areas north and south of the Project Site as non-residential land uses. (dBF, p. 12.)
Since the majority of the existing land use surrounding the Project Site is vacant land, the primary noise source in the vicinity of the Project Site is natural activity and vehicular traffic on nearby roadways. An ambient sound level measurement was conducted along the Project Site to estimate the existing acoustical environment. A RION Model NL-31 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Type 2 Integrating Sound Level Meter (SLM) was used as the data-collection device. The meter was mounted on a tripod roughly 5 feet above ground to simulate the average height of the human ear. The microphone was fitted with a windscreen. Weather conditions during the measurements were approximately 85°F, 35% relative humidity, 0-2 mph wind speed, and clear skies. The measurement was performed on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 between 11:15 am– 11:25 am. The sound level meter was calibrated before the measurement period. The measured results are:

Leq is 42.1, Lmin is 38.4, and Lmax is 49.4. Because there has not been any new development or new noise producers in proximity to the Project Site, the noise measurement taken in 2019 represents the existing noise environment. As such, the ambient sound level along the Project Site is approximately 42 dBA Leq. (dBF, p. 11.) Implementation of the Project would result in redistribution of traffic on segments in the existing and future roadway network. (dBF, p. 12.) Table 4. Project Roadways (located in Appendix G) shows the estimated traffic volumes, that were used to determine noise levels.

In order to calculate noise levels the following information and assumptions were used (dBF, p. 12.):
• Traffic mixes on Sunset Ave and Sun Lakes Boulevard were obtained from Translutions, Inc., resulting in the assumption that other roadway segments traffic mixes would be similar. • The peak hour traffic noise level was considered equivalent to the CNEL. • For the horizon year (2050) Project traffic volumes calculated assumed that Highland Home Road would be extended to 4 lanes from Sun Lakes Boulevard to a new interchange at I-10, based on the City of Banning General Plan.

The Project’s contribution to traffic noise for the following scenarios was calculated for existing noise levels, Without Project in 2050, and With Project in 2050. The traffic volumes, which are reported in Noise Study Table 4, Project Roadways, are based on PM Peak hour trips derived from the RivTam traffic model used in preparation of the Realignment of Sun Lakes Boulevard – Westward Transportation Impact Analysis, February 2022, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, which is available for review at the City Public Works department. Turning movements are from the same document. PM Peak traffic volumes were selected because noise resulting from PM Peak traffic is a proxy for the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The results of these calculations are presented in Table K – Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site. The Without Project in 2050 scenario assumed the Sunset Crossroads project site would be developed with approximately 5.87 million square feet of industrial and commercial uses and approximately 7,300 employees.
934
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 94
Page Left Intentionally Blank
935
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 95
Table K– Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site Roadway Segment
Closest Adjacent Land
Use
Noise Levels
Project Effect on
2050 Noise
Levels Noise Thresholds* Impact Existing
Without
Project
(2050)
With
Project
(2050)
East 1st Street West of Highland
Springs Avenue
Single-family residential;
57 feet from CL, 6 foot tall
wall

60.3 63.3 64.0 + 0.7 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None
Sun Lakes
Boulevard
East of Highland
Spring Avenue
Single-family residential;
53 feet from CL, 6 foot tall
wall

56.5 59.6 62.1 +2.5 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None
West of Highland
Home Road
Single-family residential;
53 feet from CL, 6 foot tall
wall

49.1 51.7 62.7 +11.0 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL Noise level increases to
Conditionally
Acceptable
East of Highland
Home Road
Currently vacant,
industrial land use
planned
N/A N/A 69.4 N/A 70/75 dBA CNEL
(Banning)
75/80 dBA CNEL
(Riverside)
None
West of Sunset
Avenue
Currently vacant,
industrial land use
planned
N/A 68.6 70.0 +1.4 dBA CNEL 70/75 dBA CNEL
(Banning)
75/80 dBA CNEL
(Riverside)
None
Westward
Avenue
East of Sunset
Avenue
Single-family residential;
30 feet from CL, 6 foot tall
wall

50.5 56.6 60.6 +4.0 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None
Lincoln Street East of Sunset
Avenue
Single-family residential;
32 feet from CL, 6 foot tall
wall

52.8 62.8 63.7 +0.9 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None
Highland
Springs
Avenue
South of I-10
Eastbound Ramps
Commercial; 80 feet from
CL

66.5 68.5 68.4 -0.1 dBA CNEL 65/75 dBA CNEL
(Beaumont)
65/72.5 dBA CNEL
(Banning)
None
North of Sun Lakes
Boulevard
Commercial; 75 feet from
CL

64.6 67.4 67.4 0 dBA CNEL 65/75 dBA CNEL
(Beaumont)
65/72.5 dBA CNEL
(Banning)
None
South of Sun Lakes
Boulevard
Single-family residential;
50 feet from CL, 6 foot
wall

57.7 62.0 62.7 +0.7 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL
(Beaumont)
55/65 dBA CNEL
(Banning)
None
936
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 96
Table K– Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site Roadway Segment
Closest Adjacent Land
Use
Noise Levels
Project Effect on
2050 Noise
Levels Noise Thresholds* Impact Existing
Without
Project
(2050)
With
Project
(2050)
Highland
Home Road
North of Sun Lakes
Boulevard
Vehicle storage N/A 62.6 67.6 +5.0 dBA CNEL N/A None
South of Sun Lakes
Boulevard
Single-family residential;
30 feet from CL, 6 foot
wall

49.3 51.7 54.8 +3.1 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL
(Banning)
75/80 dBA CNEL
(Riverside)
None
Sunset Avenue 1-10 Eastbound
Ramps-Lincoln
Street
Vacant 60.1 69.9 67.7 -2.2 dBA CNEL N/A None
South of Lincoln Single-family residential;
30 feet from CL, 6 foot
wall

54.1 63.7 63.5 -0.2 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None
North of Westward
Avenue
Single-family residential;
40 feet from CL, 6 foot
wall

50.1 62.2 61.3 -0.9 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None
South of Westward
Avenue
Educational; 70 feet form
CL

50.9 57.2 58.2 +1.0 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL
(Banning)
75/80 dBA CNEL
(Riverside)
None
802 Bay Hill Road (Sun Lakes Boulevard & Highland Home Road) 49.9 52.9 62.4 +9.5 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL Noise level increases to
Conditional
Acceptable
783 Sunshine Street(Westward Avenue and Sunset Avenue) 51.3 61.4 62.4 +1.0 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None 447 Soboba Drive (Lincoln Street & Sunset Avenue) 54.6 64.5 64.6 +0.1 dBA CNEL 55/65 dBA CNEL None Source: Appendix G, Table 5.

Notes:
• At vacant or non-noise sensitive land uses, noise level reported at 50 feet from centerline. • *Normally/Conditionally Acceptable or Desirable Maximum/Maximum Acceptable 937
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 97
Based on the results shown in Table K, there are two locations on two separate roadways, Sun Lakes Boulevard at West Highland Home Road and Bay Hill Road (Sun Lakes Boulevard & Highland Home Road), that affect the noise levels at nearby receptors closest to the intersection. Along the Sun Lakes Boulevard at West and Highland Home the noise levels would increase from Normally Acceptable to Conditionally Acceptable, and at Bay Hill Road noise levels would increase from below Normally Acceptable to Conditionally Acceptable. Along all other segments, the noise environment descriptor would not change as a result of the Project. (dBF, p. 12.) The City of Banning General Plan states that Conditionally Acceptable noise environments, “New construction of development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. It is assumed the Conditionally Acceptable noise environments are not incompatible with residential land uses. (dBF, pp. 12-13.). As such it is determined that Project would not substantially increase 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.

For these reasons, impacts regarding a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable agency standards are less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; dBF; BMC; BOC; Ord. 847
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of vibration. Man-made vibration issues are therefore, usually confined to short distances (i.e., 500 feet or less) from the source. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially the elderly and the sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment. Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can achieve the audible and feelable ranges in buildings very close to the site.

Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variety of construction activities with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity as shown in Table L – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment. Although the table gives one level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is a considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities.

The data provide a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

Table L – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)
at 25 feet
(inch/second)
Root Mean Square (RMS)
Velocity at 25 feet
(micro-inch/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Truck 0.076 86
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: FTA, Table 7-4
Notes: Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity in decibels (VdB) are 1 micro-inch/second. 938
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 98
Regarding impacts from ground-borne vibration, the City does not have significance thresholds;9 thus, this analysis is based on guidance published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its document titled Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. According to the FTA, although the perceptibility threshold for humans is approximately 65 VdB, human response to vibration is not usually significant unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. If the vibration level at a residence reaches 85 VdB, most people would be strongly annoyed by the vibration.

Table M– Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Groundborne Vibration, displays some of the common human reactions to various levels of groundborne vibration (expressed in PPV) and its effect on buildings.

Table M – Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Groundborne Vibration Vibration Level
(PPV)
(inches/second)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.08 Vibration readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins ancient monuments should be
subjected

0.10 Level at which continuous vibration
begins to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings

0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling –
houses with plastered walls and ceilings

0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: Caltrans, compiled from Table 5 (p. 22) and Table 12 (p. 24).

Note: PPV = Peak Particle Velocity.

Project construction would require standard construction equipment and methods that could produce ground-borne vibrations as shown in Table L. There are some residences, but no historic structures within 25 feet of the Project Site. At approximately 25 feet from the Project Site, ground-borne vibration generated during Project construction from a large bulldozer would be approximately 0.89 PPV which, based on the 9 The Banning GP Noise Element Policy 6 states, All development proposals within the noise impact area of the Interstate and the railroad shall mitigate both noise levels and vibration to acceptable levels through the preparation of focused studies and analysis in the development review and environmental review process.(GP, p. V-56.) The Project is not a development proposal and the Project Site is not within the noise impact area of the interstate or railroad; therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed Project.
939
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 99
information in Table M, would be considered readily perceptible, but would not reach the threshold of beginning to annoy people.

Regarding vibration once the Project is complete, vehicles traveling on roadways are supported on flexible suspension systems and pneumatic tires and as such are not an efficient source of ground vibration. They can, however, impart vibration into the ground when they roll over pavement that is not smooth. Continuous traffic traveling on a smooth highway creates a fairly continuous but relatively low level of vibration. (Caltrans, p. 10.) According to Exhibit III-10 Banning General Plan Proposed General Plan Truck Routes, the Project Site is not a designated truck route. (GP DEIR, p. III-51.) Therefore, vibrations would arise from smaller vehicles.

For these reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, impacts regarding the exposure and generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels would be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; BMC; Caltrans; GP; GP DEIR 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 three 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
940
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 100
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:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) describes what to consider when analyzing whether a project has a growth-inducing impact, such as fostering economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth. The analysis must not assume that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. 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 Sun Lakes Boulevard, a planned roadway (Arterial Highway) in the City’s GP. 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. Although the Sunset Crossroads project (Figure 8) is proposed in proximity to the Project Site, the Sun Lakes Boulevard Expansion was contemplated prior to the submittal of the entitlement applications for Sunset Crossroads and the City would proceed with implementation of the proposed Project regardless. Since the Project is implementing a portion of the City’s Circulation Element and not removing 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 dirt road 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
941
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 101
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 order to 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 of Banning through a contractual agreement with the Riverside County Fire Department, which in turn contracts with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (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 located in 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 1.5 miles to the northwest of the Project Site and would likely provide emergency response services to the Project Site (the closest fire station in the City is Fire Station 89, approximately 2.2 miles to the northeast of the Project). 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 more than 0.70 fire personnel per 1,000 residents, which would be 58 firefighters at GP buildout. (GP DEIR, p. III-202.)
942
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 102
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. Additionally, the construction of Sun Lakes Boulevard would add another access route for firefighters to nearby residents. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR; RCFD
vi. 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 2.2 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. Additionally, the construction of Sun Lakes Boulevard would add another access route for police to nearby residents. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Sources: GP; GP DEIR
vii. 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 performance objectives.

Additionally, the construction of Sun Lakes Boulevard would add another access route for nearby residents. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Source: GP
viii. 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
943
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 103
ix. 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.

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
944
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 104
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 Sun Lakes Boulevard, a planned roadway, between South Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. 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 Sun Lakes Boulevard, a planned roadway. 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
945
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 105
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 is included 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 Project Site 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 and the trips using the proposed Project have been accounted for in the GP.

The GP identifies that sidewalks, bike lanes, off-street trails, and golf cart routes are especially important along major roadways in the community. The PASS Transit System has local routes in and serves Banning, Beaumont, Cabazon, and Cherry Valley and is considered 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 is implementing GPA 19-2502, by constructing Sun Lakes Boulevard, a designated Arterial Highway, that would be designed and constructed in conformance with City’s GP Circulation Element with four lanes, left turn pockets, sidewalks, one bicycle lane, and stop signs. As such, the Project is implementing the City’s Circulation Element. For these reasons implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; therefore, there would be no impacts in this regard.

Sources: GP; LRTP; PASS; RTA
946
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 106
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than significant impact. The City adopted the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Local Transportation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the City of Banning, hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines. According to the Guidelines, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) attributable to the project (including induced demand) are to be calculated by evaluating the No Project and With Project conditions under the horizon scenario using the RIVTAM or RIVCOM traffic model. (LSA, p. 22.) Based on the Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if a proposed transportation project results in a net increase in VMT during the horizon year. The increase in VMT is calculated by comparing the horizon year No Project VMT with the horizon year With Project VMT. The Guidelines indicate model adjustment may be necessary to account for induced growth and potential increases in future land use as a result of a capacity enhancing transportation project. (Translutions, p, 1.)
Translutions, Inc prepared a VMT Screening Analysis for the proposed Project using the Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) in compliance with the City’s Guidelines to ascertain if further VMT analysis is required. (The VMT screening analysis is included as Appendix H to this Initial Study.) Due to the small size of the proposed Project, from a transportation project perspective, The VMT Screening Analysis compared the Project’s effect on VMT at a 5-mile, a 10-mile, and Countywide levels.

As shown in Table N, the With Project condition results in a substantial reduction of VMT within a 5-mile and 10-mile radius of the Project Site. As also shown in Table N, the modeling results shows the With Project condition is likely to increase Countywide VMT by approximately 0.0005%. This increase is well within the margin of error for transportation models, and as such might not be indicative of a significant adverse impact, and could be a result of rounding at various stages of the modeling process. (Translutions, p. 2.) Table N – Change in Horizon Year (2040) VMT

No Project
VMT
With Project
VMT
Change
(in VMT)
Change in VMT
(percentage)
5-Mile Radius 3,596,100 3,581,022 (15,078) (0.4193)
10-Mile Radius 8,374,519 8,359,646 (14,873) (0.1776)
Riverside County 92,860,800 92,861,278 478 0.0005
Source: Translutions, Table A
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
To verify whether the Project would indeed result in an increase in VMT, the base year model was also run to identify if the With Project VMT increase results are similar to the horizon year VMT results. Table O – Change in Base Year (2012) VMT shows the results of the Base Year model runs. (Translutions, p. 2.) 947
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 107
Table O – Change in Base Year (2012) VMT

No Project
VMT
With Project
VMT
Change
(in VMT)
Change in VMT
(percentage)
5-Mile Radius 1,980,031 1,979,158 (872) (0.0441)
10-Mile Radius 4,457,790 4,456,431 (1,359) (0.0305)
Riverside County 53,677,825 53,657,144 (20,681) (90.0020) Source: Translutions, Table B
VMT = Vehicle Miles TraveledT
As shown in Table O, the Project results in decreased VMT under all analysis geographic limits, validating the argument that the increase in future County-wide VMT is within the margin of error of the model and not the result of the proposed Project. (Translutions, p. 2.) For these reasons, impacts with regard to an increase in VMT are less than significant.

Sources: SB 743; LSA; Translutions
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 proposed Project does not include any design features that would increase traffic hazards, as the Project is designed and will be constructed in accordance with the amended City’s GP Circulation Element (GP Amendment No. 19-2502, Resolution No. 2020-37) and the City’s standards for Arterial Roadways. The Project is not introducing a substantially different land use to the area and will be compatible with adjacent uses. As such, the Project will not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Sources: Project Description; Resolution No. 2020-37
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. In its existing condition, the Sun Lakes Boulevard is a gated unimproved dirt road that does not provide through vehicular access from South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue. Construction and operation of Sun Lakes Boulevard, a designated Arterial Highway in the City’s GP circulation element, would improve vehicular connectivity and access to the land uses with the surrounding area. Therefore, implementation of the Project will beneficially impact emergency access.

Sources: Project Description; GP
948
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 108
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.

As part of the Phase 1 CRA, a request was sent on September 13, 2019 to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to search the Sacred Lands File (SLF). The SLF is a repository of Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering areas, places of religious or sacred activity, etc.). Results of the SLF search received on September 24, 2019 suggest no known Native American cultural resources within the APE (AE(a), p. 26).

On October 15, 2020, representatives of the City and WEBB (as the City’s consultant) met virtually with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians’ (MBMI) Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) (Ann Brierty) to introduce the Project and provide background regarding the prior consultation efforts conducted by the City regarding GPA 19-2502. On that same date, the results of the Project’s Phase 1 CRA records search were provided to the MBMI THPO. On December 3, 2021, the Phase I CRA was provided to the MBMI THPO. WEBB, on the City’s behalf, made follow-up phone calls to the MBMI THPO in January and February 2021 and received no return calls. City staff followed up with the MBMI THPO in September 2021 and concluded consultation on November 15, 2021. No tribal cultural resources were identified during this consultation process. 949
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 109
As discussed in Response Va Cultural Resources, the Phase I CRA (included as Appendix C) concluded there are no CRHR-eligible or NRHP-eligible resources present on the Project Site and since much of the Project Site has been previously disturbed by road grading, gas pipelines, and historic ranch activity, there is a low likelihood that intact significant historical resources are buried. (AE(a), p. 32.) Furthermore, the results of the NAHC SLF search did not indicate the presence of any sacred sites or locations or religious or ceremonial importance within the Project’s APE.

Regarding inclusion on a local register of historical resources, there are six local 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.

Although no tribal cultural resources were identified during the Project’s AB 52 process, the Project will implement mitigation measure MM CR-1, which requires construction in the vicinity of the find to halt 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 tribal cultural resources and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Sources: AE(a); GP DEIR
950
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 110
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. As discussed in the Project Description, the Project crosses three major drainage channels. Thus, the Project includesthree sets of multiple RCBs, concrete swales, un-grouted riprap, v-gutters, storm drain laterals and catch basins, and trapezoidal channels. These drainage designs would conform to local, state, and federal regulations. The Project also includes catch basins and will discharge into existing Line J, Line I or Line K located north of the Project Site. As discussed in Responses Xc)i through Xc)iv, the High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Associates with the Updated Sun Lakes Boulevard Improvement Project, Technical Memorandum ((“NHC”) included as Appendix F to this Initial Study) determined that the size and placement of the Project’s RCB culverts will have minimal sediment transport impacts because the hydraulic conditions upstream of all three of the proposed crossings are very comparable under pre- and post-project scenarios (NHC, p. 31). The Project would also adjust and relocate various utilities to grade (such as sewer manhole, storm drain manhole, telecommunication manhole, power poles, and electrical vault).

In order to irrigate the proposed landscaping along the median and on the slope easements, the Project would connect to existing water lines; thus the Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities. 951
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 111
Electricity is provided to the City by the Banning Department of Public Works, which buys its electricity from Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE facilities include an existing substation located on east Ramsey Street, and high-voltage transmission lines, which range from 12 kilovolts (KV) to 115 KV. Currently the Project Site has existing power poles that may be relocated as part of the Project; thus, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded electric lines. Rather, as mentioned above, the Project would adjust existing utility lines to grade.

The Gas Company (formerly Southern California Gas) provides natural gas services and facilities to the City. (GP DEIR, pp. III-205.) However, the proposed Project, a roadway extension, would not require natural gas services. As such, the proposed Project would not result in the in expansion of natural gas lines. Kinder Morgan owns and operates a high pressure gas line in Westward Avenue. At the request of Kinder Morgan, the project’s drainage crossings at Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek will be designed and constructed to avoid conflict with that facility.

Telephone services are provided by Verizon, while cable is provided by Time Warner to the City of Banning residents. (GP DEIR, p. III-207.) While the Project would not require any telecommunication services, as part of the Project footprint, as mentioned above, the Project would adjust existing telecommunication man hole to grade.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, impacts regarding the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.

Sources: Project Description; GP DEIR; NHC
b) Have sufficient water supplies 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 and unincorporated County of Riverside lands located southwesterly of the City limits. The City owns and operates wells, reservoirs, and a distribution line system to deliver domestic water within their service area. The City has water lines ranging from 2 inches to 30 inches in diameter. (GP PSF, p. VI-1.) According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City will be able to meet future demands through 2045. The UWMP shows that recent water use in 2020, landscaping irrigation for both nonpotable and potable range between 301 Acre-Feet (AF) and 599 AF, respectively. Previous year’s show that water consumption within the landscaping irrigation sector fluctuate between 267 AF and 306 AF for non-potable water and 505 AF and 579 AF for potable water. In general, landscape irrigation for both potable and non-potable water uses combined account for approximately 10.3 percent of the City’s water use. (UWMP, p. 6-7.) The UWMP has projected water demand in 2045 for landscape irrigation for non-potable and potable water range from 484 AF and 900 AF. (UWMP, p. 6-15.) As mentioned above, the proposed Project is implementing GPA 19-2502 by constructing a Circulation Element Arterial Highway. The Project includes landscaping within roadway median and hydroseeding for 952
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 112
slope protection along the slope easement. This quantity of landscaping would not consume significant quantities of water.

Therefore, since the Project would not require extensive amounts of water use and the UWMP has concluded it will be able to meet future development demands, the proposed Project would have sufficient water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Thus, implementation of the Project would less than significant impacts.

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 roadway extension 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 local standards, 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 roadway extension 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. As discussed in the Project Description, the Project may include the removal of approximately 14 existing power poles.

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 2026, 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
953
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 113
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 would have no impact in terms of complying with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Source: AB 939
954
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 114
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? No impact. 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 within or immediately adjacent to an SRA or LRA classified very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). (CalFire.) According to the City GP, the proposed Project is within an area classified as high fire threat zone, with a small portion of the right-of-way within a very high fire threat zone and is adjacent to an area of very high fire threat zone to the south within the City’s sphere of influence (GP, Exhibit V-10).

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 Site is currently an undeveloped dirt road between South Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. The Project Site is gated and does not provide vehicular access from South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue. Construction and operation of the Project, a planned arterial highway, would provide vehicular connectivity and access and could be used as an evacuation route in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Sources: GP; CalFire
955
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 115
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? No 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 Sun Lakes Boulevard, a planned roadway, between South Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. This proposed roadway would be constructed in a relatively flat area and no component of the Project, would contribute to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

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?
No 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 Sun Lakes Boulevard, a planned roadway, between South Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. This proposed roadway would not include fuel breaks, the use of emergency water sources, new power lines, or new utilities. No impact is anticipated.

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? No 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 Sun Lakes Boulevard, a planned roadway, between South Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. This proposed roadway would be constructed in a relatively flat area and no component of the Project, would contribute to a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact is anticipated.

Source: CalFire
956
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 116
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 selfsustaining 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 Substantially Degrade the Quality of the 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; • threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or • substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal.

The results of the MSHCP Consistency Report, LAPM Survey Report, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report, NEPSSA Report, Fairy Shrimp Technical Memo, and the JD Report (included in Appendix B of this Initial Study), and the analysis in Section IV Biological Resources indicate that with implementation of existing regulations, 957
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 117
mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5 and compliance with the condition of any regulatory permits issued by the RWQCB and/or CDFW, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

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 Phase I CRA, 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.

Source: Above Environmental Checklist; AE(a); WSP(a); WSP(b); WSP(c); WSP(d); WSP(e); WSP(f) 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 GPA 19-2502 and is therefore consistent with local and regional transportation plans. The Project’s air quality emissions do not exceed established thresholds of significance (Table A and Table B). The Project adheres to all other City and County land use plans and policies, and would not increase VMTs within a 5-mile radius, 10-mile radius, or Riverside County, service area (Table O). 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); Translutions 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 as it relates to 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); dBF; Geocon; WEBB(a); NHC 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 656 958
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 118

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).

Earlier Analysis Used, if any: Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Sun Lakes Boulevard Circulation Element, General Plan Amendment GPA 19-2502; January 2020; Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Banning Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, SCH Number 2005011039, June 2005. Both documents are available at the City of Banning.

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: Reference:

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 December 23, 2019).

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 June 8, 2022.)
AE(a)
Applied Earthworks, Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California, April 2024 revised. (Appendix C)
AE(b)
Applied Earthworks, Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California, April 30, 2024. (Appendix E.2)
ALUC
Riverside County, Airport Land Use Commission, BN. Banning Municipal Airport, Adopted October 2004. (Available at http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/06- %20Vol.%201%20Banning%20Municipal.pdf?ver=2016-09-19-114352-640, accessed October 5, 2020.)
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 October 5, 2020.)
959
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 119
Cited As: Reference:

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://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/, accessed June 7, 2022.) 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 June 5, 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 June 8, 2022.) Caltrans
California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. (Available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf, accessed July 11, 2022.)
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/defaultsource/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4, accessed June 6, 2024.)
CARB
2022
California Air Resources Board, State and Federal Standard Area Designations, webpage, 2022. (Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-areadesignations, accessed June 4, 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 June 6, 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 October 52020.) 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=Defa ult&contextData=(sc.Default), accessed October 5, 2020.) 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=Defa ult&contextData=(sc.Default), accessed October 5, 2020.) 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=Defau lt&contextData=(sc.Default), accessed October 5, 2020.) 960
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 120
Cited As: Reference:

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 October 5, 2020.)
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 October 7, 2020.)
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.&law Code=HSC&article=1, accessed October 5, 2020.)
dBF dBF Associates, Inc., Noise Analysis Report – Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension, Banning CA, April 8, 2022. (Appendix G)
DOF
California Department of Finance, Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State – January 1, 2023 and 2024. May 2024 (Available at
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/, accessed June 7, 2024.) DTSC-A
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database Community Day School No.1 (33010034). (Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=33010034, accessed October 5, 2020.)
DTSC-B
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 June 23, 2022.)
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Flood Map Center: FIRM Panel Map No. 06065C0816G, Effective Date August 28, 2008.(Available at https://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraList.cgi?displ=wsp/item_06065C0816G.txt, accessed October 7, 2020.)
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 September 18, 2020.) FTA
Federal Transit Administration, Transmit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. (Available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/transit-noiseand-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-report-0123, accessed July 8, 2022.) Geocon
Geocon West, Inc., Geotechnical Pavement Investigation, Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment, South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue, Banning, California, October 14, 2019, Revised June 5, 2024. (Appendix E.1)
961
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 121
Cited As: Reference:

Google
Earth Google Earth Pro, 2021, Version 7.3.4.8248 (Accessed on June 22, 2022.) 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 September 18, 2020.) 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 October 3, 2020.)
IDA International Night Sky Association, What is Light Pollution. (Available at https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/, accessed May 26, 2022.) 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-DraftLRTS-120119-GV22.pdf, accessed October 2, 2020.) LSA
LSA Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Local Transportation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the City of Banning, October 2021. (Available at https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12605/City-of-Banning-TIA-Guidelines, accessed on June 6, 2024.)
MSJC Mt. San Jacinto College, MSJC Campus Locations, 2022. (Available at https://msjc.edu/locations/index.html, accessed June 23, 2022.) NHC
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. Technical Memorandum – High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Associated with the Updated Sun Lakes Boulevard Improvement Project. May 28, 2024. (Appendix F)
Ord 847
County of Riverside, Ordinance No. 847 (As Amended Through 847.1), An Ordinance of The County Of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 847 Regulating Noise, effective July 19, 2007.(Available at https://www.rivcocob.org/ords/800/847.pdf, accessed June 22, 2022.) PASS City of Banning, Bus Schedules. (Available at http://www.banning.ca.us/351/Bus-Schedules, accessed October 2, 2020).

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.&lawC ode=PRC, accessed October 2, 2020.)
962
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 122
Cited As: Reference:

Resolution
No. 2020-
37 City of Banning, Resolution No. 2020-037: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, Adopting a Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment 19-1503) and Approving Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 19-2502 For A Proposed General Plan Circulation Element Amendment For The Extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard, In The City Of Banning, California (APN’s 537-110-007, 537-110-008, 537-110-009 And 537-110-010), January 17, 2020. (Available at https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7109/Att-1-Resolution-2020-37?bidId=, accessed June 7, 2022.)
RCFD
Riverside County Fire Department, Fire Stations. (Available at http://www.rvcfire.org/stationsAndFunctions/FireStations/Pages/default.aspx, accessed October 2, 2020.)
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. 348.4896, effective January 10, 2019. (Available at
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/Ord_348_clean_version.pdf?ver=2019-01-22-170021-000, accessed September 18, 2020.)
RTA
Riverside Transit Agency, Bus Route Schedules, September 8, 2019. (Available at https://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/riding-the-bus/maps-schedules, accessed October 2, 2020.)
SB 18
California Senate Bill 18 (2004), Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004. Traditional Tribal Cultural Places. (Available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0001- 0050/sb_18_bill_20040930_chaptered.html, accessed June 7, 2024.) 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 December 23, 2019).

SCAG RTP
SCS
Southern California Association of Governments, Connect Socal; The 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Adopted April 4, 2024. (Available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-finalcomplete-040424.pdf?1714175547, accessed Juen 6 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-impactsworking-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf, accessed June 4, 2024.) SCAQMD
2022
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, Adopted December 2, 2022. (Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/airquality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16, Accessed June 6, 2024.)
963
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 123
Cited As: Reference:

USCB United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts Banning City, California, July 1,2023. (Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/banningcitycalifornia, accessed June 7, 2024.

UWMP
West & Associates Engineering, Inc and John Robinson Consulting, Inc., City of Banning 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021. (Available at
https://www.ci.banning.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/9110/Banning-Final-2020-UWMP--- 06282021?bidId=, accessed on June 7, 2022.)
WEBB(a) Albert A. Webb Associates, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project in the City of Banning, November 2, 2021. (Appendix A) WEBB(c) Albert A Webb Associates, Energy Tables. (Appendix D) WSP(a) WSP USA, Inc., Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, June 2024. (Appendix B.1) WSP(b) WSP USA, Inc., Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey, City of Banning, June 2024. (Appendix B.2)
WSP(c) WSP USA, Inc, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Burrowing Owl Focused Survey, City of Banning, May 2024. (Appendix B.3)
WSP(d) WSP USA, Inc, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Narrow Endemic Plan Species Survey, City of Banning, June 2024. (Appendix B.4)
WSP(e) WSP USA, Inc, Technical Memorandum, Sun Lakes Boulevard Results of 2020-2021 Wet and Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Focused Surveys, City of Banning, May 14, 2024. (Appendix B.5) WSP(f)
WSP USA, Inc, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, July 2024. (Appendix B.7)
WSP(g) WSP USA, Inc. Sun Lakes Blvd Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters, City of Banning, July 2024. (Appendix B.8)
964
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 124

LIST OF INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
951-686-1070
Planning and Environmental Services Department
Project Manager: Autumn DeWoody, Senior Environmental Analyst Quality Control: Stephanie Standerfer, Vice President
Cheryl DeGano, Environmental Services Practice Area Leader Eliza Laws, Senior Environmental Analyst
Monica Tobias, Associate Environmental Analyst
Noemi Avila, Assistant Environmental Analyst
Jacqueline Gamboa, Assistant Environmental Analyst
Virginia Waters, Assistant Environmental Analyst
965
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project 125

EXHIBIT A
966
WEBB N W E S “ ” “ ” S HIGHLAND HOME RD S SUNSET AVE W WESTWARD AVE E E E T T SMG E T 12''W 10''FM
967
WEBB N
W
E

SWEBB N
W
E

S WEBB N
W
E

S WEBB N
W
E

S WEBB N
W
E

S WEBB N
W
E
S 6''G 6''G 6''G
SS 12'' 16''RW 16''RW 16''RW
6''RW
6''RW OH OH OH

UGE UGE UGE OIL OIL OIL OIL
16''RW
36''SD 36''SD
36''SD 36''SD
36''SD 36''SD
OIL
OIL OIL 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW
24''RW OH OH OH OH OH OH
6''G 6''G

OHT OHT
12''W 12''W
24''RW
60''SD
24''RW
60''SD OIL OIL OIL OIL
24''RW
24''RW
TT
OHT
UGT
UGT

UGT UGT UGT

OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
6''RW 6''RW 6''RW UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGT UGT UGT UGT FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER 968
WEBB N W E S WEBB N W E S 3''G 3''G 3''G

FIBER FIBER OH OH OH OH OIL OIL
12''W 12''W FIBER FIBER FIBER 21''SS 21''SS 21''SS 21''SS UGT UGT UGT UGT FIBER FIBER FIBER 60''SD 60''SD 60''SD 969
WEBB N W E S MATCHLINE - STA.62+00.00 SEE SHEET 5
MATCHLINE - STA.62+00.00
SEE SHEET 5 HIGHLAND HOME ROAD HIGHLAND HOME ROAD E SMG E 6''G 6''G 6''G OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W SS 12'' SS 12'' 16''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW OIL OIL OIL 6''RW OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH

UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE
UGE OIL OIL OIL 12''OIL 12''OIL 18''W 18''W OIL
36''SD
36''SD
36''SD UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER OIL OIL SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' 970

WEBB N W E S
MATCHLINE - STA.72+00.00
SEE SHEET 6 MATCHLINE - STA.62+00.00 SEE SHEET 4
MATCHLINE - STA.72+00.00
SEE SHEET 6
MATCHLINE - STA.62+00.00
SEE SHEET 4 OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 18''W 18''W 18''W 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW SS 12'' 18''SD 60''SD 60''SD 48''SD OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT OH FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' 971

WEBB N W E S
MATCHLINE - STA.81+00.00
SEE SHEET 7
MATCHLINE - STA.72+00.00
SEE SHEET 5
MATCHLINE - STA.81+00.00
SEE SHEET 7
MATCHLINE - STA.72+00.00
SEE SHEET 5 OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER 972

WEBB N W E S
MATCHLINE - STA.81+00.00
SEE SHEET 6
MATCHLINE - STA.91+00.00
SEE SHEET 8
MATCHLINE - STA.91+00.00
SEE SHEET 8
MATCHLINE - STA.81+00.00
SEE SHEET 6 OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' OH OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER 973

WEBB N W E S
MATCHLINE - STA.91+00.00
SEE SHEET 7 MATCHLINE - STA.101+00.00 SEE SHEET 9
MATCHLINE - STA.101+00.00
SEE SHEET 9
MATCHLINE - STA.91+00.00
SEE SHEET 7 UGE OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' 15''SS UGEUGE OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 48''SD 974
WEBB N W E S MATCHLINE - STA.101+00.00 SEE SHEET 8
MATCHLINE - STA.101+00.00
SEE SHEET 8 S SUNSET AVE SEE SHEET 10 SUNSET AVE SUNSET AVE SEE SHEET 10 W WESTWARD AVE T T T 3''G 3''G 3''G
6''G 6''G 6''G UG CATV OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT UGT UGT UGT UGT

UGT FIBER FIBER FIBER
OHT OHT OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 18''W 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW OIL 12''W 12''W
24''RW 8''W UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT 60''SD FIBER FIBER FIBER 24''RW 21''SS 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 10''FM 975
WEBB N WE S SEE SHEET 9 SUN LAKES BOULEVARD W WESTWARD AVE SUNSHINE STREET TT 3''G 6''G 6''G 6''G 6''G 6''G 6''G 6''G 6''G 6''G OHT

UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT

FIBER OHT OHT

OH OH OH
18''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 24''RW 8''W

UGT UGT UGT
60''SD

FIBER FIBER
24''RW
21''SS
10''FM
976
City of Banning
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-i
II. Responses to Comment Letters
The City of Banning (City) as Lead Agency circulated for public review and comment an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project (“Project”), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. The purpose of circulating the IS/MND was to receive input on the City’s determination that with imposition of mitigation measures, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

The IS/MND was circulated for a 30-day period beginning September 5, 2024 to October 8, 2024 to interested parties, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Riverside County Clerk for review and comment, pursuant to Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day review period from September 9, 2024 to October 8, 2024. Additionally, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was published in The Record Gazette newspaper on September 6, 2024. Copies of the comments received during the public comment period and responses to those comments from the City are included herein.

Based on review of the comments received, no new, unavoidable significant environmental effects were identified and therefore, pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the environmental documents for this Project is not required.

Section 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the Banning City Council to consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process.

There is no requirement for a formal response to each of the comments received (unlike the requirement for a Final Environmental Impact Report). However, in order to provide the Banning City Council with additional information upon which to base their decision to adopt the IS/MND, the following Responses to Comments have been prepared. Copies of each comment letter received and the City’s responses are enclosed. Each comment letter is labeled alphabetically, and each individual comment identified by a number. 977
City of Banning
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-ii
Table of Contents

1. COMMENTS RECEIVED ................................................................................................RTC-1

2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES......................................................................RTC-1 Letter A – Federal Emergency Management Agency.....................................................RTC-2 Response to Comment Letter A ....................................................................................RTC-5 Letter B – Kathleen Dale................................................................................................RTC-6 Response to Comment Letter B..................................................................................RTC-13 Letter C – Morongo Band of Mission Indians...............................................................RTC-32 Response to Comment Letter C..................................................................................RTC-34 Attachment 1...............................................................................................................RTC-37 978
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-1

1. COMMENTS RECEIVED
Two timely comment letters and one late comment letter were received regarding the IS/MND:

Letter Date of Letter Commenter/Agency
A September 10, 2024
Edith Lohmann, Acting Branch Chief
Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch
Federal Emergency Management Agency
B October 8, 2024 Kathleen Dale
Last Day of Public Review Period: October 8, 2024
C October 11, 2024 Bernadette Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Morongo Band of Mission Indians
979
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-2

2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
Comment Letter A – Federal Emergency Management Agency
980
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-3
981
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-4
982
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-5
Response to Comment Letter A – Federal Emergency Management Agency Response to Comment A-1
This comment directs the City to review the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Riverside County and the City of Banning. It also notes the City is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and therefore certain NFIP building requirements may apply to the project. The comment also notes that many NFIP participating communities have adopted building requirements that are in addition to, and may be stricter than, the federal requirements for constructing within a flood hazard zone.

As stated on page 83 of the IS/MND circulated for public review, per Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06065C0816G, the Project site is not within a flood hazard area. Therefore, the NFIP building requirements identified in Comment A-1 are not applicable to the Project and therefore no changes to the Project are needed. This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue.
983
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-6
Comment Letter B – Kathleen Dale
984
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-7
985
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-8
986
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-9
987
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-10
988
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-11
989
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-12
990
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-13
Response to Comment Letter B – Kathleen Dale
Response to Comment B-1
This comment states the commentor is a resident in the City and suggests the IS does not fully disclose all the information that CEQA requires.

Comment noted. As evidenced by the Responses to Comments B-2 through B-18, the IS/MND contains all the information and analysis consistent with Section 15603(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise any new environmental issues. Any clarifications and amplifications made to the publicly circulated IS/MND in Responses to Comments B-2 through B-18, do not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Response to Comment B-2
This comment suggests that the Project Description in the IS/MND lacks a description of the construction phase activities.

The required contents of an Initial Study are set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d). This section does not require the inclusion of plans in an initial study. Construction plans were on file with the City and available for review at the time the IS/MND was circulated for public review. Nonetheless, the following text will be added on page 3 of the Final IS/MND before the subheading Right-of-Way and Easement Acquisition:

Plans for the proposed Project are included in Exhibit A, which follows the List of Initial Study Preparers on page 121.

The Project’s air quality analysis, included as Appendix A to the IS/MND, characterizes the scope of the construction activity and assumptions utilized in the analysis. The commenter’s assertion that 10 trucks per day for construction-period air impacts is a “ridiculous underestimation” is unsubstantiated opinion. Evidence of environmental impacts cannot be founded on “[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative (Pocket Protectors v.

City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927.

As substantiated within Section III – Air Quality of the IS/MND and within these responses, the Project would result in less than significant air pollutant emissions impacts. (IS/MND, pp. 30-

32.) The Project Description on page 6 of the Final IS/MND will be amplified to describe the anticipated construction activity as follows:

Construction
Project construction is anticipated to occur within a two-year time span. The Project will require approximately 98,180 cubic yards of soil import. Typical construction equipment and vehicle usage is anticipated and may include, but not be limited to excavators, rubber-tired dozers/loaders, scrapers, and other material-delivery 991
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-14
vehicles. A typical construction work schedule of weekdays during daylight hours is expected. See Section III for further details on construction-related assumptions evaluated within this IS/MND.

Additionally, the last paragraph in Section III – Air Quality, commencing on page 30 of the Final IS/MND will be amplified to describe the construction assumptions evaluated in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis as follows:

An Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas analysis (AQ/GHG Analysis) was prepared for the Project by Albert A. Webb Associates dated November 2, 2021 (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 2020.4.0. The estimated construction period for the proposed Project is approximately 18 to 24 months, beginning no sooner than February 2023.

A duration of 24 months was evaluated to provide a worst-case analysis. The default parameters within CalEEMod were used and these default values 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, assumptions relevant to model inputs for short-term construction emission estimates used are:
(WEBB(a), p. 2)
• Construction is anticipated to begin in February 2023, which will include construction activities such as utility relocation, installation of drainage improvements, roadway improvements, and traffic signal installation and paving. Because the schedule is unknown, the grading and paving activities were assumed to occur concurrently throughout the estimated construction duration to provide a conservative analysis. The estimated construction schedule is shown below: (WEBB(a), p. 2)
Construction
Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days
Grading February 01, 2023 January 31, 2025 523
Paving February 01, 2023 January 31, 2025 523
• The off-road equipment to be used for each activity is shown below and represents program defaults. Each piece of equipment is assumed to operate eight (8) hours per day: (WEBB(a), pp. 2-3)
992
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-15
Construction Activity Off-Road Equipment Unit Amount
Grading Excavators 2
Grader 1
Rubber Tired Dozer 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Scrapers 2
Paving Pavers 2
Paving Equipment 2
Rollers 2
• To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, the Project utilized the mitigation option of watering the Project site three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 61 percent for PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions. Two (2) one-way vendor trips per day were added to the grading and paving activity to account for water truck trips. (WEBB(a), p. 3)
• Eight (8) one-way hauling truck trips per day were included during paving to account for material delivery. (WEBB(a), p. 3)
• Approximately 98,180 cubic yards of soil import is required for the Project.

The import site is currently unknown. Therefore, the CalEEMod default was utilized which assumes a hauling trip length of 20 miles per trip. Based on the CalEEMod default truck capacity of 16 cubic yards, approximately 6,136 truckloads of soil would be imported. (WEBB(a), p. 3) This results in approximately 12 truckloads of soil delivered per day (approximately 24 oneway truck trips per day) during construction.

Amplification of the discussion of the Project’s construction activity in the IS/MND does not change the analysis or conclusions of Project impacts and does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Response to Comment B-3
This comment questions whether the proposed pipeline relocations could fit within the area slated for relocation given the criteria from the pipeline owners.

This comment, which does not raise an environmental issue, is noted. Because the pipeline alignments are not yet finalized, the City Department of Public Works has been in coordination with the pipeline owners in order for the Project engineers to delineate a healthy impact buffer around the area expected for relocation of the pipelines.

The third full paragraph on page 6 of the IS/MND identifies the criteria the pipeline owners provided to the City. Based on that criteria, the Pipeline Realignment Boundary shown on Figure 6a – Project Components West Extent 1 and Figure 6b – Project Components East Extent 2 were identified. The pipelines could be relocated in either the yellow temporary impact areas or the blue pipeline realignment impact boundary as shown on these figures.

Combined, these two areas provide approximately 60-feet in which the pipelines could be relocated. It is important to note that in some locations the existing pipelines are only two feet 993
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-16
apart and do, in fact, cross each other. Thus, there is sufficient area to accommodate relocation of the pipelines.

In the event pipeline relocations, once finalized, impact the area outside of the permanent and temporary impact boundaries currently shown on figures in the IS/MND (e.g., Figure 2, Figure 6a, Figure 6b), then subsequent CEQA analysis and studies for the additional impact area may be required. This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue.

Response to Comment B-4
This comment requests more visual information on the finished, operational phase of the Project.

As noted in Comment B-2, CEQA does not require the inclusion of preliminary plans with an IS/MND. Engineering plans were on file with the City and available for review at the time the IS/MND was circulated for public review. Additional graphics that are based on the Project engineering plans are enclosed as Attachment 1 to further amplify how the project will appear and how visible the Project will be from surrounding viewpoints.

Attachment 1 begins with two plan-view renderings of the proposed intersections at Sunset Avenue and Highland Home Road (Images 1 and 2). Then, side-by-side comparisons of photographs taken October 16, 2024 and renderings that are based on the engineering plans to demonstrate how the project might look from a height of 6-feet from roughly the same locations and same viewpoints (Images 3-9). The renderings suggest the proposed road will not be a significant addition to the viewshed and it will not obscure the views of the surrounding hills and mountains. Lastly, Attachment 1 contains two Google Earth street views taken from east-bound Interstate 10 facing south (Images 10 and 11). The first street view is located just past the northeast corner of the Sun Lakes Country Club Golf Course, from which the Project will not be visible due to the berm along the highway and because the project will be lower in elevation than the highway. The second street view is from atop the I-10 bridge over Sunset Avenue, from which the project would be visible as an arterial highway approximately 0.4-mile to the south. Regardless of where the viewer stands, the distant views of the hills and mountains, which is the scenic resource in the area, will remain intact. Lastly, Attachment 1 includes two plan-view renderings of the entire roadway from altitude (Images 12 and 13). Inclusion of Attachment 1 to clarify the Project’s appearance does not change the analysis or conclusions of Project impacts and does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue.

Response to Comment B-5
This comment questions whether the IS/MND analyzed potential changes to local traffic patterns after project construction is complete.
994
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-17
The commenter does not provide context for the request that the IS/MND assess changes in local traffic patterns. It appears the comment may be alluding to congestion resulting from a change in traffic patterns. Congestion is measured by levels of service (LOS). Although LOS was once a CEQA metric for traffic/transportation impacts, as of July 1, 2020, the metric for traffic/transportation impacts changed to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 mandates that CEQA review of transportation impacts be modified by eliminating consideration of delay- and capacity-based metrics such as LOS. Since LOS is no longer a CEQA threshold, a discussion of this topic in the IS/MND is not appropriate. The IS/MND appropriately discloses the results of the VMT analysis on pages 104–105 of the publicly circulated IS/MND.

This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise any new environmental issues. No additional analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-6
This comment suggests that the noise analysis did not consider scenarios with existing and future land use designations according to the currently-adopted General Plan.

CEQA requires an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable impacts resulting from a project.

Given that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan and related entitlements was issued on February 21, 2021; a public scoping meeting was held for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan EIR on February 18, 2022; and the City’s design team for the proposed Project coordinated with the Sunset Crossroads design team during the design process, the change in the general plan land use designation from residential to industrial is reasonably foreseeable and no analysis assuming the future land uses along the Project site is required. Thus, the Project’s noise analysis in the Noise Analysis Report, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension (the Noise Study), appropriately evaluated and disclosed Project-related noise impacts.

Nonetheless, the following discussion is provided to disclose Project-related noise impacts assuming the vacant land north and south of the Project site remains designated for residential uses. IS/MND Table K – Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site reports With Project (2050) Noise Levels at two vacant property locations within the Sunset Crossroads project; east of Highland Home Road (at the west end of the Project) and west of Sunset Avenue (at the east end of the Project). As shown on IS/MND Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Designation and Figure 4 – Zoning Designations, land use and zoning designations for property north of the Project site are predominately residential (medium, low, and high density). Property south of the Project site is within unincorporated County territory with a general plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) and a zoning designation of A-1-10. Because Sun Lakes Boulevard is designated an Arterial Highway, no residential driveways would be permitted direct driveway access. The existing residential neighborhoods in proximity to the Project site have block walls between the residential uses and Sun Lakes Boulevard. Thus, it is reasonably foreseeable that any future residences 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
995
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-18
adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard would similarly be required to install a block wall. A solid barrier, such as a block wall, provides 8 dBA of noise shielding.2 The following table shows, for each residential land use designation for the vacant land along the Project alignment, the With Project 2050 Noise Levels, the With Project 2050 Noise Levels With Shielding, and the Noise Thresholds.

Land Use
Designation /
Zoninga
With Project
2050 Noise
Levelsb
(dBA)
With Project
2050 Noise
Levels with
Shieldingc
(dBA)
Noise
Thresholdd
(dBA) Impact
North of the Proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension (Banning) (from west to east)
MDR / MDR 70.0 62.0 55/65 Less than significant
LDR / LDR 70.0 62.0 55/65 Less than significant
HDR / HDR 70.0 62.0 55/65 Less than significant
North of the Proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension (unincorporated County) LDR / A-1-10 70.0 62.0 55/65 Less than significant
Notes:
a General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations as shown on IS/MND Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Designation and Figure 4 – Zoning Designations.
b With Project 2050 Noise Levels at Sun Lanes Boulevard for the segment west of Sunset Avenue is the noise level at the east end of the Project and was selected because it is the highest With Project 2050 Noise Level along the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension and provides the most conservative result. c With Project 2050 Noise Levels with Shielding assumes 8 dBA noise reduction, per Appendix A of the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, due to the presence of a solid barrier between any future residential use and Sun Lakes Boulevard. The FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide is available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. d For property within Banning, the lower number represents the Highest Normally Acceptable Noise Level and the higher number represents the Highest Conditionally Acceptable Noise Levels from the Banning General Plan Noise Element for Residential – Single Family Dwellings, Duplex, Mobile Homes as shown on page V-50. (Available at https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/665/GP-Ch-V-EnvironmentalHazards?bidId=.) For property within Riverside County the lower number represents the Highest Normally Acceptable Noise Level and the higher number represents the Highest Conditionally Acceptable Noise Levels from the Riverside County General Plan Noise Element as shown on page N-7. (Available at https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-genplan-general-plan-2015- GPA-20960-General-20Plan-20Elements-Ch07-Noise.pdf.)
2 Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, Final Report January 2006, Appendix A; Best Practices for Calculating Estimated Shielding for Use in the RCMN, Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. 996
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-19
As shown in the above table, the With Project 2050 Noise Levels with Shielding are less than the Highest Conditionally Acceptable Noise Levels for both Banning and Riverside County.

Amplification of the discussion of the With Project 2050 Noise Levels does not change the analysis or conclusions of Project impacts and does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further analysis is required in this regard.

Regarding the traffic volumes and traffic mix on area roadways, refer to Response to Comment B-14.

Response to Comment B-7
Similar to Comment B-4, this comment requests more visual information on the finished, operational phase of the Project.

Refer to Response to Comment B-4 and Attachment 1 of this response for additional visual representations of the post-Project improvements. Regarding new sources of light and glare, as stated on page 25 of the publicly circulated IS/MND, the Project will introduce streetlights along the Project site. However, there are streetlights on the roadways surrounding the Project site. Although the Project will introduce additional streetlights, these new streetlights will be shielded and directed downwards onto the Project site to minimize spillage and light pollution in accordance with the City’s standards. This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue.

Response to Comment B-8
This comment questions the sufficiency of the air quality impact analysis of operational-phase impacts due to altered circulation patterns.

As explained in the publicly circulated IS/MND Section III – Air Quality, operational emissions would primarily be from infrequent visits by vehicles driven by maintenance personnel and are considered negligible; therefore, only short-term impacts were quantified. (IS/MND, p. 30.) The proposed Project would not result in a change in land use or introduce new vehicle trips and would be consistent with the roadway classification in the City of Banning (an Arterial Highway).

As discussed in Section XVII of the publicly circulated IS/MND, based on the traffic data provided by Translutions, Inc., included as Appendix H of the IS/MND, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Additionally, the Project includes bike lane and sidewalk improvements along the roadway which accommodate nonvehicular modes of travel that can reduce VMT. As such, the implementation of the Project would not result in long-term increases in air pollutant emissions and no revisions to the IS/MND are required.

Moreover, as discussed herein, the localized air pollutant emissions from vehicles traveling on the roadway post-construction were considered. As analyzed in the Air Quality Analysis included as Appendix A of the publicly circulated IS/MND, Localized Significant Thresholds 997
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-20
(LSTs) apply to the operational phase of a project, if a project includes stationary sources (e.g. flares and turbines) and/or on-site mobile equipment or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods of time idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed Project does not include such uses. Therefore, due to the lack of stationary source emissions or on-site mobile equipment, no long-term LST analysis is needed. As such, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and no revisions to the IS/MND are required.

Additionally, localized high levels of carbon monoxide (CO) are not anticipated to result from this Project because localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. A CO “hot spot” is a localized concentration of CO that is above the state or federal 1-hour or 8-hour ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Based on the information presented below, a CO “hot spot” analysis is not needed to determine whether the addition of Project related traffic will contribute to an exceedance of either the state or federal AAQS for CO emissions in the Project area.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) analysis for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Basin, detailed in the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), show that peak CO levels are due to unique meteorological and topographical conditions, not specific intersections.3

The busiest intersection evaluated in the 2003 AQMP was that at Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave., which had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. This hot spot analysis was conducted at intersections subject to extremes in vehicle volumes and vehicle congestion and did not predict any violation of CO standards. The highest average daily traffic volumes on study roadway segments with the Project would be 24,370 trips on Sun Lakes Boulevard between Highland Springs Avenue and Highland Homes Road, which is lower than the values studied by SCAQMD.4 It can reasonably be concluded that traffic on Project-related roadways would not have daily traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP, nor would there be any reason unique to the meteorology to conclude that intersections or segments affected by the Project would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. As such, the Project would not result in a CO hot spot and no revisions to the IS/MND are required.

Regarding Highland Home Road north of Sun Lakes Boulevard, the comment is unclear because the roadway north of Sun Lakes Boulevard is unimproved.

Clarification of the discussion of the Project’s operation activity does not change the analysis or conclusions of Project impacts in the IS/MND and does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. August 2003. (Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-management-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp, accessed October 17, 2024) 4 Albert A Webb Associates. Realignment of Sun Lakes Boulevard – Westward Avenue Transportation Impact Analysis. February 2022, updated March 2024. (Available at City of Banning) 998
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-21
Response to Comment B-9
This comment suggests that some of the biological surveys dates are too old to be informative.

The commentor is correct in noting that all of the biological studies in Appendix B of the publicly circulated IS/MND have report dates of 2024. However, the commentor’s suggestion that the reports are too old to be informative is incorrect. The Project’s biological reports (IS/MND Appendices B.1 through B.5 and Appendix B.7), except the Jurisdictional Delineation Report (IS/MND Appendix B.6), inadvertently omitted that a Project site visit was conducted on March 25, 2024 by a WSP senior biologist. The purpose of this site visit was to confirm there have been no changes to the biological setting since the original surveys were conducted.

Because the biological setting had not changed, no changes to the biological reports were required as a result of the 2024 site visit.

Regarding the assertion that the field surveys must be updated to be consistent with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Permittee Implementation Guidance Manual, on September 5, 2024 the City received an email from California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (jointly referred to as the Wildlife Agencies) confirming approval of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report (IS/MND Appendix B.7). The Wildlife Agencies were provided all of the biological reports in Appendix B of the IS/MND as part of their review of the DBESP Report. The Wildlife Agencies’ approval of the DBESP Report on September 5, 2024 indicates the City’s proposed biological mitigation makes the Project consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and no further surveys, other than those identified in IS/MND mitigation measures MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3, are required. This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue. No further analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-10
This comment suggests the analysis of impacts to Crotch’s Bumble Bee is insufficient.

As stated on page 36 of the IS/MND, the Project’s MSHCP Consistency Analysis determined Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) has a low potential to occur due to lack of habitat and/or were not observed onsite. However, as indicated on page 41 of the IS/MND, CBB can potentially occur in the Project area especially if there are suitable flowering plants available. The MSHCP Consistency Analysis referenced site visits conducted for biological resources by qualified biologists on September 4, 2020, March 31, 2022, and April 3, 2024. As such, the Project area was evaluated repeatedly over several years by a qualified biologist, and no evidence of CBB was observed during those visits. Therefore, the analysis of impacts to CBB has not been deferred. Similar to other standard mitigation measures (e.g., burrowing owl preconstruction surveys), mitigation measure MM BIO-3 on page 42 of the publicly circulated IS/MND establishes performance standards and a methodology to follow in the event the species becomes present. To clarify why mitigation measure MM BIO-3 is included despite the CBB not found on the Project site over roughly four years of site visits, MM BIO-3 will be revised as follows:
999
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-22
MM BIO-3: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Preconstruction Survey and Construction Monitoring. In order to avoid direct and indirect impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB), which could establish themselves on the Project site before construction starts be present in flowering habitat or in burrows along the creek embankments, a qualified CBB biologist (i.e., 1-2 years of experience performing CBB surveys, or, has a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with CDFW), shall perform the records searches and site surveys according to the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) prior to the start of ground-disturbing project activities. The literature review and records search shall identify occurrences at the Project site and within a 5-mile buffer. The literature review and records search shall include: a report from the CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base for a 10-mile radius of the project site; aerial photographs; and iNaturalist for bee sightings and nectar sources.

Then, the qualified biologist shall conduct on-site surveys for foraging and nesting bees. The surveys shall begin with a habitat assessment to evaluate the likelihood of bumble bees occurring within and adjacent to the project area. Then, foraging bumble bee and nesting surveys shall be conducted during the peak nectar blooming period (April through June 30). Habitat assessment and survey results shall be submitted to CDFW prior to the start of ground-disturbing project activities. Vegetation removal is allowable from November to January (note seasonal limitations for nesting birds in MM BIO-1). No monitoring is required if removal of vegetation occurs during this time period. However, vegetation removal/ground disturbances during the CBB flight season, which is February to October, will require preemptive focused CBB surveys and full-time biological monitoring for CBB to take place within the project limits. Construction monitoring for CBB may cease based on the professional judgement of the qualified CBB biologist that construction activities have already impacted the extent of the planned impact footprint. If an active CBB nest is detected during focused surveys conducted between April and June, or during the construction monitoring, then the qualified biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer zone (including foraging resources and flight corridors essential for supporting the colony) around the CBB nest. The qualified biologist and City shall notify CDFW and if needed, process an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) with CDFW. If a single CBB is observed during construction, CDFW shall be notified, and work shall be halted in that area until the qualified biologist deems the CBB has left the site. It is expected that if an ITP is needed, that the offsite mitigation site along Smith Creek proposed by MM BIO-5, which has similar habitat types and embankments, could support CBB. If offsite mitigation for CBB is needed, then a CBB permitted land manager shall be hired by the City to ensure CBB habitat is intact on the offsite mitigation property.

This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue. The clarification of mitigation measure MM BIO-3 in 1000
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-23
the Final IS/MND regarding CBB preconstruction surveys does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-11
This comment suggests a revision to mitigation measure MM BIO-4 of the IS/MND for “ongoing training throughout the construction period.”
To clarify the intent of the mitigation measure, the mitigation measure MM BIO-4 will be revised in the Final IS/MND as follows:

MM BIO-4: Biological Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

The City of Banning shall enlist a qualified biologist to conduct a mandatory training for all construction contractors and their employees on project-related environmental concerns, including Crotch’s bumble bee, burrowing owl, pertinent rare plant species, and riparian/riverine features. To the extent feasible, the biologist conducting the WEAP shall be the same one enlisted by the City for MM BIO-1 (nesting bird surveys), MM BIO-2 (burrowing owl surveys), and MM BIO-3 (Crotch’s bumble bee surveys). This WEAP can occur during the same meeting as the paleontological WEAP described in mitigation measure MM GEO-1. No individual shall be permitted to work at the Project Site until they have completed WEAP training. The City’s Project biologist will conduct additional trainings, as needed for different construction crews that come onboard throughout the ground-disturbing activities of the Project. In lieu of in-person training, the WEAP may be recorded and presented to any contractor or crew member not present at the initial in-person training.

This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue. The clarification in mitigation measure MM BIO-4 of the Final IS/MND regarding the frequency of WEAP trainings does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-12
This comment requests a revision to mitigation measure MM CR-1 to “require cessation of ground disturbance and evaluation for any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources.” To clarify the intent of the mitigation measure, mitigation measure MM CR-1 will be revised in the Final IS/MND as follows:

MM CR-1: Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery. Prior to the start of construction, the City shall enlist a qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities. The City shall also work with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to develop an agreement for a Tribal Monitor prior to the start of construction. In the event archaeological resources are discovered during Project 1001
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-24
construction that are not part of Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) and Site 33- 013788, all ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered archaeological 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 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 Eastern Information Center (EIC) for archival purposes.

Regarding the exclusion of historic resources Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) and Site 33- 013788 from mitigation measure MM CR-1, as documented in IS/MND Section V – Cultural Resources and the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City Of Banning ,Riverside County, California, revised April 2024 (included as Appendix C to the publicly circulated IS/MND, were previously evaluated and determined to be ineligible for listing on both the National Register of Historic Property and the California Register of Historical Resources. (IS/MND, pp. 60–61; IS/MND Appendix C, pp. 25, 34.)
This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue. The clarification of mitigation measure MM CR-1 regarding archaeological and tribal construction monitoring in the Final IS/MND does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-13
This comment suggests the Project was incorrectly identified within the Cabazon Storage Unit.

On page 84 of the publicly circulated IS/MND, the Project was inadvertently identified as being within the Cabazon Storage Unit. According to Figure 3.8 of the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (located at http://banning.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/9110/2020-UrbanWater-Management-Plan-UWMP), the Project is located mostly within the Banning Storage Unit. Said Figure 3.8 suggests a small westerly segment of the project is within the Beaumont Storage Unit, which is also known as the Beaumont Basin. Regardless of which storage unit it overlies, the Project is fully within the San Gorgonio Pass Groundwater Subbasin, which has an approved Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Therefore, Threshold X.e. the Final IS/MND will be clarified as follows:

The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the Cabazon Storage Unit within the San Gorgonio Pass Groundwater Subbasin (Basin No. 7-021.04).

Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) has 1002
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-25
formed and prepared a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the entire subbasin that includes the Cabazon Storage Unit. The GSP was approved by California Department of Water Resources on October 26, 2023. The goal of GSPs is to achieve sustainable groundwater basins by 2042. The GSP describes two future projects to benefit the Cabazon Storage Unit. Specifically, Project #4 New Pipeline with Additional Imported Water Spreading in the Cabazon Storage Unit in the vicinity north of I-10 and the existing Robertson’s Ready Mix Quarry site in Banning and Project #6 New Imported Colorado River Aqueduct Spreading in the Cabazon Storage Unit (Phase 2) in the vicinity of the San Jacinto Tunnel east portal, just south of Cabazon. (GSP, pp. 6-9, 6-15.) Because the GSP does not identify the Project Site as the location part of future GSP projects, impacts to a sustainable groundwater plan are less than significant.

This comment does not change any of the significance determinations made in the MND and it does not raise a new environmental issue. The clarification in the Final IS/MND regarding the subbasin in which the Project is located does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-14
This comment requests additional noise analysis for receptors on non-Project roadways near to the Project.

The analysis contained in the Noise Study, which is included as Appendix G to the IS/MND, and IS/MND Section IX – Noise, did not evaluate traffic noise resulting from future industrial land use because the Project does not propose any land use changes. As described in detail in the IS/MND, the Project is the extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard.

The commenter’s assertion that “Assumed traffic conditions for area roads are stated in a table hidden in the noise technical study (Table 5), with no data to substantiate derivation of the proposed volumes and mix” is not accurate. Table 5 of the Noise Study does not contain traffic mix or volume data. Table 5 of the Noise Study presents the Noise Levels Along Project Roadways. Further, the data in Table 5 is not hidden in the Noise Study, this data is presented in Table K – Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site on pages 93–94 of the IS/MND. Table K cites Table 5 of Appendix G as its source.

Although Comment B-14 references Noise Study Table 5, it appears the commenter is referring to information contained in Noise Study Table 4, Project Roadways. This table includes vehicle mix and traffic volume data, which are the items discussed in the comment. Vehicle mix data is not buried, as alleged by the commenter. It is easily found within the Noise Study, which is Appendix G of the IS/MND. CEQA does not require all of the information contained within supporting appendices to be repeated within the body of an IS/MND or an EIR. Nonetheless, in response to this comment, the discussion in the last paragraph on page 92 of the publicly circulated IS/MND will be amplified as follows:
1003
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-26
The Project’s contribution to traffic noise for the following scenarios was calculated for existing noise levels, Without Project in 2050, and With Project in 2050. The traffic volumes, which are reported in Noise Study Table 4, Project Roadways, are based on PM Peak hour trips derived from the RivTam traffic model used in preparation of the Realignment of Sun Lakes Boulevard – Westward Transportation Impact Analysis, February 2022, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, which is available for review at the City Public Works department.

Turning movements are from the same document. PM Peak traffic volumes were selected because noise resulting from PM Peak traffic is a proxy for the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The results of these calculations are presented in Table K – Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site.

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that there are discrepancies between the IS/MND and the Sunset Crossroads EIR, “evidence of environmental impacts must be founded upon facts in the administrative record” for the particular project being approved. CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927. CEQA does not require that an IS/MND compare its analysis with analysis from a different uncertified environmental document, analyzing a different project altogether.

The amplification in the Final IS/MND regarding the derivation of traffic volumes does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Response to Comment B-15
This comment requests the method used to establish the existing noise levels, and requests that the project record be updated to disclose the method of establishing the existing noise levels, to address the discrepancies relative to the Sunset Crossroads EIR, and to disclose any updates to the assumptions, impacts analysis, and significance conclusions.

The source of the ambient sound level reported in the Noise Study and IS/MND is a measurement conducted along the Project Site at the location shown as ML 1 on the figure below.
1004
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-27
The discussion on page 92 of the publicly circulated IS/MND will be amplified as follows:

Since the majority of the existing land use surrounding the Project Site is vacant land, the primary noise source in the vicinity of the Project Site is natural activity and vehicular traffic on nearby roadways. An ambient sound level measurement was conducted along the Project Site to estimate the existing acoustical environment. A RION Model NL-31 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Type 2 Integrating Sound Level Meter (SLM) was used as the data-collection device. The meter was mounted on a tripod roughly 5 feet above ground to simulate the average height of the human ear. The microphone was fitted with a windscreen. Weather conditions during the measurements were approximately 85°F, 35% relative humidity, 0-2 mph wind speed, and clear skies. The measurement was performed on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 between 11:15 am–11:25 am. The sound level meter was calibrated before the measurement period. The measured results are: Leq is 42.1, Lmin is 38.4, and Lmax is 49.4. Because there has not been any new development or new noise producers in proximity to the Project Site, the noise measurement taken in 2019 represents the existing noise environment. As such, the ambient sound level along the Project Site is approximately 42 dBA Leq. (dBF, p. 11.) The amplification in the Final IS/MND regarding how the ambient noise level was established does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Regarding the commenter’s assertion that there are discrepancies between the IS/MND and the Sunset Crossroads EIR, “evidence of 1005
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-28
environmental impacts must be founded upon facts in the administrative record” for the particular project being approved. CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927. CEQA does not require that an IS/MND compare its analysis with analysis from a different uncertified environmental document, analyzing a different project altogether. No further analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-16
This comment is concerned with differences between the projected noise used in the IS/MND and the adjacent project, Sunset Crossroads.

Response to Comment B-15, describes the ambient noise measurements taken for the proposed Project.

Regarding existing traffic noise levels, the Noise Study used the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TMN) Version 2.5 to estimate traffic noise levels.

Existing traffic noise levels reported in IS/MND Table K – Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site are based on traffic counts as reported in Noise Study Table 3, Project Roadways. As is standard practice, the existing noise levels were input into the TMN to calculate the existing noise levels along the analyzed roadways. The Without Project 2050 condition is based on results from the traffic model, which assumed the Sunset Crossroads project would be developed with approximately 5.87 million square feet (SF) of industrial and commercial uses5 generating approximately 7,300 employees. This assumption is consistent with the 5.81 SF of general commercial and industrial development reported in Table A:

Specific Plan Land Use Summary on page 4 of the Noise and Vibration Analysis, Sunset Crossroads Project, September 2023.6 To amplify that the Without Project in 2050 included development assumptions for the Sunset Crossings project, the last paragraph on page 92 of the publicly circulated IS/MND will be revised as follows:

The Project’s contribution to traffic noise for the following scenarios was calculated for existing noise levels, Without Project in 2050, and With Project in 2050. The results of these calculations are presented in Table K – Noise Levels Along Roadways in Proximity to the Project Site. The Without Project in 2050 scenario assumed the Sunset Crossroads project site would be developed with approximately 5.87 million square feet of industrial and commercial uses and approximately 7,300 employees.

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that there are discrepancies between the IS/MND and the Sunset Crossroads EIR, “evidence of environmental impacts must be founded upon facts in the administrative record” for the particular project being approved. CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927. CEQA 5 Specifically the modeling assumptions were 328,400 square feet of general commercial and 5,545,000 square feet of industrial uses.
6 The Noise and Vibration Analysis, Sunset Crossroads Project is available at https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13826/App-I-Noise-Tech-Rpt_9-2023 1006
City of Banning II. Responses to Comments
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
RTC-29
does not require that an IS/MND compare its analysis with analysis from a different uncertified environmental document, analyzing a different project altogether.

This clarification of how the existing and Without Project 2050 traffic noise levels were modeled and its amplification in the Final IS/MND does not constitute new information that would require recirculation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further analysis is required.

Response to Comment B-17
This comment questions whether the future traffic volumes and mix for Project roadways are reasonable.

The commentor references Table 4 of the Noise Study located in Appendix G of the IS/MND to point out the Without Project (2050) traffic volume is estimated at no more than 2,703 vehicles with a traffic mix that is 94% passenger cars, 4% medium trucks, and 2% heavy trucks. Table 4 also identifies the With Project (2050) traffic volume is no more than 1,604 vehicles; a reduction of 1,099 vehicles. Page 12 of the Noise Study states, “The land uses along both sides of the Project are expected to be developed with industrial land uses as part of the Sunset Crossroads project.” The buildout assumptions of the Noise Analysis Report are based on the same buildout assumptions as the Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis located in Appendix H of the IS/MND, which shares the same buildout assumptions as the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the Project (IS/MND Appendix page 14 of the Noise Analysis Report).7 The VMT Analysis and TIA assumed the Sunset Crossroads project would have approximately 5.87 million square feet of industrial uses and 7,293 employees. The trip mix used is based on both intersection and roadway classification counts that were conducted in 2021 for the TIA. Because there has not been any new development in proximity to the Project Site, the traffic counts from 2021 are representative of the trip mix in the Project area.