Banning City Council
January 28, 2025

RESOLUTION 2025-12

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

AMENDING THE SALARIES OF CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER
WHEREAS, Resolutions 1982-41 and 1988-54 respectively, set the salary limit for the City Clerk and City Treasurer at $1,200 annually; and
WHEREAS, recognizing the value of the City Clerk and City Treasurer’s contributions, the City Council desires to adjust their salary to the reflect the current market rate of $550 per month or $6,600 annually.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves amendment to the salaries for city clerk and city treasurer to $550 per month ($6,600 annually), authorizes the City Manager to make necessary non-substantive changes, and to execute said agreement.

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 28th day of January 28, 2025.

Sheri Flynn, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

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

John Pinkey, City Attorney
223
Resolution 2025-12

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2025-12, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of January, 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
224
RESOLUTION NO. 1988-54

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, FIXING AND ESTABLISHING

THE SALARY OF THE CITY CLERK AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 1975-54
Clerk;
of
at
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to clarify the salary of the City NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City Banning that the salary of the City Clerk shall be established 1, 00200. per year ($100.00 per month) effective November 9, 1988; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $290.00 be appropriated from the Contingent Account to the City Clerk's account to provide sufficient funds for this salary during fiscal year 1988-89; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above $ 1, 00200. annual be placed in the City Clerk's Budget each year in the future. 1988.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October
tarry/~f
ggi nseC, ~Tayo r
ATTE}~T< ,
ucille M. Elizondo, City Cle4~k

CERTIFICATION
I, LUCILLE M. ELIZONDO, City Clerk of the
salary
SEAL)
bcille M. Elizo~do, City Cler4)
City of Banning, California
AYES:

NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of October, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:

Councilmembers Cowles, Shledon, Williams, Lawrence, Mayor Higgins City of Banning, California,
225
RESOLUTION NO. 1982-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, REVOKING

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CITY TREASURER

TO INVEST OR TO REINVEST FUNDS OF THE CITY
OF BANNING, OR TO SELL OR EXCHANGE SECURITIES SO PURCHASED AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS NO. 1974-24 AND 1978-24 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Banning ("this City Council") is authorized by California Government Code Section 53601 when a determination is made that the City of Banning has money in a sinking fund of, or surplus money in its treasury not required for the immediate necessities of the City of Banning, to invest such portion of the money as this City Council deems wise or expedient in certain legal and authorized investments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is further authorized by California Government Code Section 53607 to delegate to the Treasurer of the City of Banning its authority to invest or reinvest funds of the City, or to sell or exchange securities so purchased, until such time as the delegation of authority is revoked; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by its adoption of Resolution No. 1974-24 on May 14, 1974, delegated its authority to invest or to reinvest funds of the City of Banning, or to sell or exchange securities so purchased, to the Treasurer of the City of Banning, for which the City agreed to compensate the Treasurer an additional $300 per month, bringing his total monthly salary to $400 per month; and WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1978-24 on April 10, 1978, this additional compensation for investing or reinvesting municipal funds was increased by $100 per month, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, that the delegation of authority to the Treasurer of the City of Banning to invest or to reinvest funds of the City of Banning, or to sell or exchange securities so purchased, is hereby revoked pursuant to California Government Code Section 53607 and the Treasurer of the City of Banning is hereby relieved of his duty of making a monthly report of such transactions to this City Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolutions No. 1974-24 and 1978-24 adopted by the City Council on May 1'4, 1974, and April 10, 1978, are hereby repealed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Treasurer of Banning will now be compensated as provided for by the City Council in Ordinance No. 470 dated March 6, 1960, at a total of $100 per month.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August , 1982.

ATTE~;~T-~ , ~ n
Mayor, City of Banning', California
City Clerk of the City of v
Banning, California
226
227

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Doug Schulze, City Manager
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2025-14, Authorizing the City Manager to Sign Lease Agreement for 555 S. 22nd Street
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2025-14.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Banning was awarded a grant of $7M from the Board of State and Community Corrections.

The award provides 100% funding for the City of Banning Community Safety and Re-Entry Program. The goal of the program is to reduce recidivism and homelessness by providing support services to incarcerated individuals at Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility prior to release. This will include connection with behavioral health services, addiction and recovery services, social services, employment opportunities, housing, and transportation to last known residence.

Individuals who meet program criteria and do not have housing may qualify for housing through the Community Safety and Re-Entry Program. Housing availability in Banning is limited, but the property at 555 S. 22nd Street has recently become available. Prior to placement of any individual in rental housing, program staff will conduct assessments to determine if the individual is a good candidate for an independent living situation. This assessment will include behavioral issues, substance abuse issues, and the individual's ability and desire to work toward personal improvement. It is expected that most individuals who need housing assistance will first be placed at Opportunity Village to give staff time to observe behavior and assess the individual prior to placement in rental housing.

JUSTIFICATION:

For the past 8 years, the City has had adopted priorities to reduce homelessness and improve community safety. This program is consistent with adopted priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total 3-year cost of the lease agreement is $99,000 and, the entire cost will be funded by the BSCC Prop. 47 grant. A budget amendment will be required at a future meeting.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not approve.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:
228
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2025-14, Lease Agreement 22nd.docx

2. 555 S 22nd Street.pdf
229
Resolution 2025-14

RESOLUTION 2025-14

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR RENTAL PROPERTY AT 555 S. 22ND STREET, BANNING, CA 92220
WHEREAS, the City of Banning was awarded a $7,000,000 grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections; and
WHEREAS, the grant proceeds fund 100% of the cost of the Banning Community Safety and Re-Entry Program; and
WHEREAS, the Banning Community Safety and Re-Entry Program is consistent with the adopted priorities of the City Council, including reducing homelessness and creating a safe city; and
WHEREAS, the Banning Community Safety and Re-Entry Program includes providing temporary housing for qualified individuals; and
WHEREAS, the owners of 555 S. 22nd Street are willing to lease the property to the City of Banning for use as temporary housing for homeless individuals.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the lease agreement with Benito Avila and Steven Valverde, authorizes the City Manager to make necessary non-substantive changes, and to execute said agreement.

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 28th day of January, 2025.

Sheri Flynn, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
230
Resolution 2025-14

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
231
Resolution 2025-14

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2025-14, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of January, 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
232
Resolution 2025-14

EXHIBIT A
Lease Agreement
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241

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: January 28, 2025
SUBJECT: Accept the Notices of Completion for San Gorgonio Substation Construction and the San Gorgonio Substation 12kV Extension Projects and Authorize the City Manager to Sign and the City Clerk to Record both Notices of Completion
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council accept the San Gorgonio Substation Construction and the San Gorgonio Substation 12kV Extension Projects as complete, authorize the City Manager to sign and the City Clerk to record the Notices of Completion for each project.

BACKGROUND:

On September 28, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-81, awarding the Construction contract for the San Gorgonio Substation Construction Project to Electric Power Systems International, Inc. of Santa Ana, California.

The scope of work included the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, services, and incidentals necessary for grading, excavation, installation of concrete foundations, transformers, circuit breakers, metal-clad buildings, disconnect switches, steel bus work, lightning arrestors, insulators, protective relays, fuses, conductors and other substation components required for electric power distribution at 176 E. Lincoln Street in Banning, California.

On September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-146, awarding the Construction contract for the San Gorgonio 12kV Extension Project to Electric Power Systems International, Inc. of Santa Ana, California. The scope of work included a distribution line extension that connects San Gorgonio Substation with distribution circuits that were previously served by Alola Substation.

JUSTIFICATION:

It was necessary to improve the City's electric utility’s electric grid by replacing aging infrastructure, which allows for better resiliency and less outage duration. Additionally, the City was required to spend funds that had been specifically earmarked for the upgrades substation facilities throughout the service territory.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contract amount for the San Gorgonio Substation Construction project was $3,299,208.00 which included a 10% contingency. The final contract amount including change orders is $3,578,089.00. The 242
contract amount for the San Gorgonio 12kV Extension Project was $58,039.60, with a final amount including change orders of $63,943.60.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not accept both Notices of Completion and provide alternative direction.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. NOC_EPS - San Gorgonio Substation.docx

2. NOC_EPS - San Gorgonio Substation 12kV.docx
243
Notice of Completion Page 1 of 3
1 Recording Requested by:
2 Office of the City Clerk
3 City of Banning
4 P.O. Box 998
5 Banning, California 92220
6 7 Exempt from Recording Fees Pursuant to Government Code §6103 8 9 NOTICE OF COMPLETION
10 “SAN GORGONIO SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT”
11 12 THIS NOTICE OF COMPLETION IS HEREBY GIVEN by the OWNER, the City 13 of Banning, a municipal corporation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9204 of the Civil 14 Code of the State of California, and San Gorgonio Substation Construction Project is 15 hereby accepted by the City of Banning, pursuant to authority conferred by the City 16 Council this January 28, 2025, and the grantees consent to recordation thereof by its duly 17 authorized agent.
18 19 That the OWNER, the City of Banning, and Electric Power Systems International Inc. of 20 Santa Ana, California, the vendee, entered into an agreement dated October 12, 2021, for 21 “San Gorgonio Substation Construction Project”.
22 23 The principal items of work for the construction of the substation included grading, 24 excavation, installation of concrete foundations, transformers, circuit breakers, metal-clad 25 buildings, disconnect switches, steel bus work, lightning arrestors, insulators, protective 26 relays, fuses, conductors and other substation components required for electric power 27 distribution.
28 The work was performed in the City of Banning, CA 92220. 29 30 That the work was substantially completed June 14, 2024, for “San Gorgonio Substation 31 Construction Project.”
244
Notice of Completion Page 2 of 3
1 (1) The Nature of Interest the construction of an electric power distribution 2 substation completed on June 14, 2024 for “San Gorgonio Substation Construction 3 Project.”
4 (2) That the City of Banning, a municipal corporation, whose address is 5 Banning City Hall, 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, is completing the 6 work.
7 (3) That said construction work was performed at 176 E. Lincoln Street, in 8 Banning, California 92220.
9 (4) That the original contractor for said improvement was Electric Power 10 Systems International, Inc., State Contractor License No. 1068030 C-10. 11 (5) That Performance and Payment bonds were required for this project. 12 (6) The nature of interest is in fee.
13 14 Dated: January 28, 2024
15 CITY OF BANNING
16 A Municipal Corporation
17 18 By
19 Douglas Schulze
20 City Manager
21 ATTEST:
22 23
24 Caroline Patton
25 Administrative City Clerk
26 27 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
28 29
30 John Pinkney, City Attorney
31 245
Notice of Completion Page 3 of 3
1 JURAT
2 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity 3 of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, 4 and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 5 6
7 State of California
8 County of Riverside
9 10 Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this ____ day of ____________, 2025 11 by ______________________________, who proved to me on this basis of satisfactory 12 evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me. 13 14 (S e a l)
15 16
17 18 ______________________________
19 Notary Public in and for said County
20 and State
21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
22 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
23 24 CAROLINE PATTON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
25 26 That I am the Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, which City caused 27 the work to be performed on the real property hereinabove described, and is authorized to 28 execute this Notice of Completion on behalf of said City; that I have read the foregoing 29 Notice and know the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true based upon 30 information available to the City of Banning, and that I make this verification on behalf of 31 said City of Banning. I declare under perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 32 Executed on ______________________, 2025 at Banning, California. 33 34
35 Administrative City Clerk
36 City of Banning
}
246
Notice of Completion Page 1 of 3
1 Recording Requested by:
2 Office of the City Clerk
3 City of Banning
4 P.O. Box 998
5 Banning, California 92220
6 7 Exempt from Recording Fees Pursuant to Government Code §6103 8 9 NOTICE OF COMPLETION
10 “SAN GORGONIO SUBSTATION 12KV EXTENSION PROJECT”
11 12 THIS NOTICE OF COMPLETION IS HEREBY GIVEN by the OWNER, the City 13 of Banning, a municipal corporation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9204 of the Civil 14 Code of the State of California, and San Gorgonio Substation 12kV Extension Project is 15 hereby accepted by the City of Banning, pursuant to authority conferred by the City 16 Council this January 28, 2025, and the grantees consent to recordation thereof by its duly 17 authorized agent.
18 19 That the OWNER, the City of Banning, and Electric Power Systems International Inc. of 20 Santa Ana, California, the vendee, entered into an agreement dated September 10, 2024, 21 for “San Gorgonio Substation 12kV Extension Project”. 22 23 The principal items of work for the construction of the substation included grading, 24 excavation, installation of concrete foundations, vaults, and conduit as required for electric 25 power distribution.
26 The work was performed in the City of Banning, CA 92220. 27 28 That the work was substantially completed January 8, 2025, for “San Gorgonio 12kV 29 Extension Construction Project.”
247
Notice of Completion Page 2 of 3
1 (1) The Nature of Interest the construction of an electric power distribution 2 substation completed on January 8, 2025 for “San Gorgonio Substation 12kV Extension 3 Project.”
4 (2) That the City of Banning, a municipal corporation, whose address is 5 Banning City Hall, 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, is completing the 6 work.
7 (3) That said construction work was performed at 176 E. Lincoln Street, in 8 Banning, California 92220.
9 (4) That the original contractor for said improvement was Electric Power 10 Systems International, Inc., State Contractor License No. 1068030 C-10. 11 (5) That Performance and Payment bonds were required for this project. 12 (6) The nature of interest is in fee.
13 14 Dated: January 28, 2024
15 CITY OF BANNING
16 A Municipal Corporation
17 18 By
19 Douglas Schulze
20 City Manager
21 ATTEST:
22 23
24 Caroline Patton
25 Administrative City Clerk
26 27 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
28 29
30 John Pinkney, City Attorney
31 248
Notice of Completion Page 3 of 3
1 JURAT
2 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity 3 of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, 4 and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 5 6
7 State of California
8 County of Riverside
9 10 Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this ____ day of ____________, 2025 11 by ______________________________, who proved to me on this basis of satisfactory 12 evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me. 13 14 (S e a l)
15 16
17 18 ______________________________
19 Notary Public in and for said County
20 and State
21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
22 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
23 24 CAROLINE PATTON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
25 26 That I am the Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, which City caused 27 the work to be performed on the real property hereinabove described, and is authorized to 28 execute this Notice of Completion on behalf of said City; that I have read the foregoing 29 Notice and know the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true based upon 30 information available to the City of Banning, and that I make this verification on behalf of 31 said City of Banning. I declare under perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 32 Executed on ______________________, 2025 at Banning, California. 33 34
35 Administrative City Clerk,
36 City of Banning
}
249

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: January 28, 2025
SUBJECT: Updating the City Council on the Implications of the Santa Ana Regional Board (SARB) Including the City of Banning in its Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Basin Plan Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss the background, staff efforts and consequences of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARB) including the City of Banning into their Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Basin Plan Amendment and obtain direction on several options to dispute this action.

BACKGROUND:

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a federally mandated program to control pollution from both point and non-point sources, including runoff from urban (municipal), industrial, construction, and agricultural areas. The program originated under the Clean Water Act and was expanded through amendments enacted by Congress in 1987. These amendments introduced specific requirements for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), which were mandated to obtain NPDES permits by established deadlines to manage stormwater discharges and prevent pollution of receiving water bodies.

In California, the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act complements the federal framework by establishing the California State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards are tasked with addressing water quality issues at the local level and ensuring compliance with both state and federal water quality regulations. To control discharges from the MS4, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards issue NPDES MS4 Permits to public agencies who own, operate, or maintain an MS4. Each Regional Water Quality Control Board’s jurisdiction is generally defined by hydrologic boundaries. The City of Banning sits within two distinct hydrologic boundaries, described below:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Region (Region 7) The majority of the City of Banning’s drainage is tributary to the Whitewater River, which is governed by Region 7. The Whitewater River subarea includes ten municipalities, including Banning at the headwaters, as the river flows to the Salton Sea. This particular watershed does not have an outlet to an ocean, as the Salton Sea is a sump with no natural drainage outlet.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana River Region (Region 8) A small portion of the City of Banning has historic and tributary flows within Region 8, tributary to the San Jacinto River. This area encompasses a small portion of the western portion of the City, including a portion of the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, and about 1/3 of 250
the Sun Lakes HOA. These areas drain to Potrero Creek at Highland Springs Ave and Breckenridge Ave, then south through the hills into the San Jacinto River, then to Canyon Lake, and ultimately Lake Elsinore. This watershed does not have an outlet to an ocean, as Lake Elsinore is a sump with no natural drainage outlet.

The historic watershed tributary to Potrero Creek is a little over 300 acres of the city’s 23.2 square miles, or 2% of the City’s jurisdictional limits. This watershed has been significantly altered over the course of 100 years of development. The portions north of Interstate 10 were re-routed easterly with construction of the Interstate, and no longer drain to Potrero Creek, but rather Smith Creek which is tributary to the Whitewater River. The watershed was also impacted by the construction of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center and the Sun Lakes HOA.

City MS4 and Sun Lakes Country Club/HOA
Under the MS4 Permit, every municipality is required to maintain its MS4, which includes channels, storm drains, catch basins, detention basins, and other publicly owned infrastructure, to meet the local water board’s MS4 Permit requirements. This is required for any facility that is owned, operated, and/or maintained by the City of Banning. The City is also required to ensure that where these systems outlet into natural drainage courses, that water quality sampling is completed to show that end of pipe discharges meet established water quality criteria. For the areas in Banning regulated under Region 7’s MS4 Permit, this is conducted at the end of the Ramsey Storm Drain system, with an outfall south of I-10 and north of the airport.

The City is not responsible for storm drain systems that are privately owned or maintained. All the storm drain lines within the Sun Lakes HOA are private facilities, outside the City of Banning’s jurisdiction. As such, the City’s MS4 Permit obligations end as storm water is discharged into the Sun Lakes Community. As designed, storm water from both the City of Banning and the City of Beaumont have discharges into the golf course and waterways that are not subject to MS4 Permit requirements.

The design of Sun Lakes Country Club has an effect of further reducing the watershed that is tributary to Potrero Creek that the City is responsible for under the MS4 Permit. What is left of the 300 acres is about

5.5 acres of surface flows on Highland Springs Ave, east of the centerline of the road, and from a point north of Glen Eagles Drive.

NPDES MS4 Permit Coverage
It is common for jurisdictions to fall within the boundaries of multiple Regional Water Quality Control Boards, requiring coverage under separate MS4 Permits for each watershed that they are part of. For example, Menifee and Murrieta’s city boundaries are in both the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Boards jurisdiction, and Pomona and Claremont are both within the Santa Ana and Los Angeles Regional Boards’ jurisdiction.

For the City of Banning, it was not until Region 8 was updating the Santa Ana River Basin Plan, which prescribes water quality standards for water bodies within Region 8, that it was discovered that a portion of Banning that drains to Potrero Creek has not been covered under a MS4 permit in Region 8. The outcome of discussion with Region 8 staff at the time we were made aware of this lack of permit coverage, was that the City of Banning would be required to become a co-permittee to the Santa Ana River Regional Water Quality Control Board. This would include new annual expenses due to requirements listed in Region 8’s MS4 Permit in addition to the expenses incurred to comply with the Region 7 MS4 Permit for the majority of the City. The City would also be obligated to pay an annual fee of $18,196 to each Regional Water Quality Control Board.

City staff worked with Region 8 staff on alternatives for consideration, given the very limited size of the area to be regulated by Region 8. Section 13228 of the California Water Code allows one Region to designate responsibility to another region. In this case, Region 8 would designate the 5.5 acres of covered area to Region 7, with concurrence from Region 7. City staff has prepared a Request for 251
Designation and submitted that to Region 8 staff. That effort is currently in process and has had verbal support from Region 8 to continue with this effort. If accepted by all parties, the City of Banning would NOT be a co-permittee on the Santa Ana River Regional Water Quality Control Board and would NOT pay additional fees to Region 8. Rather, the Colorado River Regional Board would be designated as the party responsible for ensuring that outflows to Potrero Creek meet the requirements of Region 8 under our current MS4 permit with Region 7.

Each Region has a new MS4 Permit that will be adopted in 2025. The Region 8 MS4 Permit will likely be adopted prior to the City’s Region 7 MS4 Permit. The Permits have different requirements and regulations, with the MS4 Permit from Region 8 having more stringent and costly requirements than the City’s Region 7 MS4 Permit.

Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake (LE/CL) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Each Regional Water Quality Control Board has a Water Quality Control Plan, commonly referred to as “Basin Plans,” which are regional planning documents to establish water quality standards and outline strategies for protecting and enhancing the beneficial uses of water within specific watersheds. The Basin Plans identify water quality objectives, implementation programs, and water quality monitoring requirements to ensure compliance with state and federal water quality laws. MS4 Permits are the implementation mechanism for Regional Water Quality Control Boards to require municipalities to meet the water quality standards listed within the Basin Plan; the Basin Plan also designates requirements for construction, industrial, and agricultural dischargers, and those dischargers have their own NPDES permits.

Through water quality monitoring mandated by NPDES Permits (including the MS4 Permit), the Regional Water Quality Control Boards evaluate the health of water bodies and determine if they are impaired according to their beneficial uses. Examples of beneficial uses include water contact recreation, drinking water supply, and warm freshwater habitat. If a water body continues to be impaired by not being able to sustain its prescribed beneficial uses, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards incorporate TMDLs into their Basin Plans to eventually restore that beneficial use. TMDLs establish the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive while still meeting water quality standards for beneficial uses.

Potrero Creek in the City of Banning drains into the Santa Ana Regional Board jurisdictional area and into the San Jacinto River sub-watershed, which outlets to Canyon Lake (CL) and Lake Elsinore (LE).

Both of these lakes were found to have significant levels of pollution due to tributary runoff conveying significant amounts of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus. The excess nutrients caused significant eutrophication events (commonly referred to as algal blooms) and caused fish kills. Both lakes are designated with the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use within the Santa Ana River Basin Plan. As a result, Region 8 developed the LE/CL Nutrients TMDL in 2004.

To collectively work together on restoring the beneficial uses, various agencies under multiple different NPDES Permits came together to form the LE/CL Task Force. The LE/CL Task Force pools funding from various entities (including military, transportation, and agriculture) to fund projects that study the pollution within the lakes, and implement projects to restore the beneficial use, as required by each NPDES permit. The LE/CL Task Force also includes Region 8 as a non-funding task force member.

The City of Banning was NOT designated as a responsible party within the Santa Ana River Basin Plan, nor the TMDL in 2004; records of that decision were not available or clear from Region 8 as to why the City was not included.

The LE/CL Task Force began to develop an amendment to the Santa Ana River Basin Plan to revise the TMDL in 2015 since the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use had not been restored over the 11 years since the TMDL had been in effect. Since June 18, 2015, Region 8 and the LE/CL Task Force have been collaborating to revise the TMDL so that the lakes can eventually meet the water quality criteria that protects the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use.
252
The City of Banning was notified by the Regional Board and a consultant working for the LE/CL Task Force in June of 2023 that the City was being included as a responsible party to the TMDL, 8 years after the update process began, based on updated GIS and Historical mapping activities. City staff responded to the request by working with our regional partner, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, to understand the request, the impacts, and how to respond to the LE/CL Task Force and Region 8 staff. A summary of the actions completed by City staff to date is included below:

Notification and Correspondence with the Regional Board 8 The City was first formally notified of its inclusion in the Basin Plan and TMDL when Barbara Barry, Senior Environmental Scientist for Region 8, contacted Banning staff stating she would like to discuss the fact that they just discovered that Banning flows into the San Jacinto River subwatershed in July of 2023.

City staff met her the next workday, assuming she did not realize Banning is in Region 7 and thought it would be a 2-minute meeting.

Realizing that she did indeed state the City discharged into the San Jacinto River Watershed, City staff told her we would have to research the drainage and respond formally with a letter after the City could conduct research on the matter.

At this time, the City was NOT included as a stakeholder on the LE/CL Task Force in the prior 8 years of work that was completed on the Basin Plan and TMDL update.

Initial City Response – Formal Letter to Region 8 (Att. 2) Dated January 30, 2024 Addressed to Lauren Briggs, Environmental Scientist of Region 8, in a letter dated January 30, 2024.

After performing research and calculations and developing detailed technical exhibits, the City determined that there is hydrologic and geographic disconnection between the City and the lakes and included seven (7) exhibits with the letter.

The City is hydrologically disconnected from discharging into Canyon Lake and has a 3 hour 100- year retention requirement in its Stormwater Ordinance.

The City’s runoff drains to Mystic Lake first before it reaches Canyon Lake and then Lake Elsinore.

Mystic Lake has not discharged water since the 1990s and has not discharged water since adoption of the TMDL in 2004. Since the TMDL was established, Banning’s runoff has not reached Canyon Lake or Lake Elsinore.

The hydraulic boundary maps, supplied by GEI, the Task Force consultant, does not correctly reflect the built-out conditions in the City and relies on old topographic data.

The TMDL was formed in 2004 and begun revisions in 2015, and the City was notified in July of 2023 that it is a responsible party.

The City asked the TMDL Task Force to provide detailed hydrologic modeling that shows a connection under normal stormwater conditions.

After this formal letter, 2 follow-up emails requesting a response were sent and Region 8 responded on March 1, 2024 by arranging a meeting on March 18, 2024.

Meeting with Region 8 Staff and Executive Director held at their office on March 18, 2024 Region 8 stated they would analyze the City’s true contributions and impacts to the TMDL and confirm if they were based on information provided in the Exhibits provided by the City. They agreed any contributions were “very small.”
The Executive Officer stated this would be the “beginning” of future discussions with the City.

Meeting with Region 8 staff held via Microsoft Teams on April 15, 2024.

Region 8 staff told the City to complete the process to join the Santa Ana Region MS4 permit through submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD). Stated they would assist the City with the process.

Only follow up from the meeting was a request to complete this process and provide a timeline to do so, with no assistance or guidance provided to City staff. 253
2nd Formal Letter - Formal Letter to Region 8 (Att. 3) Dated June 26, 2024 Addressed to Ray Akhtarshad, Water Resources Control Engineer, of Region 8, in a letter dated June 26, 2024.

The letter is a response to a request made by Region 8 to submit the status of our timeline to submit a ROWD (NPDES) application to Region 8 .

City provided a technical evaluation and evidence that only 5.5 acres of half street width from City of Banning drains into the San Jacinto sub watershed, not 300 acres as estimated incorrectly by the LE/CL Task Force.

Due to this limited amount of discharge, City requested that designation continue under Region 7 for all portions of the City pertaining to the MS4.
3rd Formal Letter to Tess Dunham, LE/CL Task Force Advisor (Att. 4), dated July 29, 2024 The City should not be listed as a responsible party and removed from the Basin Plan Amendment.

Santa Ana Region 8 has not provided any response to the January 30, 2024 letter stating Banning should not be included in the TMDL.

Santa Ana Region 8 has not responded to the June 26, 2024 letter providing a technical evaluation and evidence that only 5.5 acres of half street width from the City of Banning drains into the San Jacinto sub watershed, not 300 acres as estimated incorrectly by the LECL Task Force.

The City requested again that designation continue under Region 7.

Throughout the above-listed process, Region 8 staff never responded to the City, except to state in an email that the City should complete the ROWD process to join the Region 8 NPDES Permit so the 5.5 acres of runoff can be regulated by Region 8.

September 13, 2024 Region 8 Public Meeting – Cypress, Ca Region 8 had stated that a public workshop on the LE/CL TMDL would occur at the September 13, 2024 Regional Board meeting, prior to formal actions regarding the adoption of the TMDL, providing the first opportunity for public comment on the TMDL prior to its adoption.

City staff prepared to participate in this workshop.

Prior to the formal agenda preparation and publication, the Regional Board removed the Basin Plan Amendment Workshop from the meeting agenda. This workshop would have been the first opportunity for public comment on the Basin Plan Amendment, and its cancellation left the City with no opportunity to publicly comment on the TMDL to date. The Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer prepared a Comment Card (Att. 5) and drove to Cypress City Hall to attend the meeting in person and have three (3) minutes of Public Comment for non-agendized items.

He told the Santa Ana Regional Board members that Banning was not included in any meetings on the TMDL and most importantly, letters were ignored and never answered.

The Chairwoman directed the Region 8 Executive Director to respond to Banning and provide them with an opportunity for a Presentation.

Region 8 Response to Public Comments and Chair Direction Region 8 did finally respond to the City’s two letters on October 24, 2024 (Att. 6) and stated the City had to stay in the TMDL for now, with no regard or response to the City’s assertation that only

5.5 acres are in the Region 8 watershed, it is a disadvantaged community, and it does not make sense to include the City of Banning until the TMDL Technical/De-Minimus Study is complete and shows Banning is a contributor, if at all.

Region 8 falsely stated that it only determined in July 2023 that the City of Banning was to be part of the TMDL, however, Region 8 determined this as early as October 2016 Attachment 8 is a Source Assessment Draft from October 2016. In Figure 4.2, Banning is identified as a jurisdiction within the watershed. This is 7-years prior to the City of Banning being notified of its inclusion as a responsible party to the Basin Plan. Additionally, Attachment 9 is a draft study from TDM Smith from April 2017 that lists Banning in Table 6.3 with proposed waste load allocations. This draft was just over 6-years from when the City of Banning was first notified of its inclusion as a responsible 254
party to the Basin Plan.

De -Minimus Study
The Basin Plan Amendment to revise the TMDL states that the LE/CL Task Force will perform numerous tasks to meet the TMDL’s requirements to protect beneficial uses in the lakes. One of these tasks is a “De-Minimus Study,” which will define and identify minor sources of nutrients and identify responsible levels for TMDL implementation for such pollution. The study is intended to be completed within three (3) years of the Basin Plan Amendment’s effective date. The City is expecting that its discharge will be considered “De-Minimus” and is adamant that it should not be included in the TMDL until such a determination is made. The current Basin Plan Amendment language states the City will be included in the TMDL now, prior to this De-Minimus Study being performed.

As currently proposed in the Basin Plan, and after the De-Minimus study is completed, if the City is indeed deemed to have an insignificant contribution of discharge to the San Jacinto River watershed, then it may be removed from the TMDL, after paying into it for 3 or more years. Removal from the TMDL is not guaranteed. This is problematic for the City because the current Basin Plan Amendment to revise the TMDLs does not distinguish the City of Banning from other responsible parties. The Basin Plan Amendment specifies tasks that responsible parties are to complete, including some that will be completed before the De-Minimus study is complete. Therefore, the City of Banning will be legally liable to either (a) contribute funds to the LE/CL Task Force to complete those tasks, or (b) complete those tasks on its own. Should the City not complete those tasks specified by the time frame listed in the Basin Plan Amendment, the City could be subject to enforcement and potential monetary fines. Furthermore, even if the study determined that the City of Banning contributes a “de-minimus” level of nutrients, the City of Banning would not be able to immediately remove itself from the requirements of the TMDL. The TMDL would have to go through another Basin Plan Amendment to remove the City as a responsible party. As noted above, the current Basin Plan Amendment has taken over nine years to develop and adopt, and it will take potentially up to two more years following Region 8’s approval to be effective – Basin Plan Amendments must also be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board, the Office of Administrative Law, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, should the DeMinimus study prove successful for the City of Banning, the City of Banning would still be obligated to implement the requirements of the TMDL until it is effectively removed from the Basin Plan, which would take numerous years to achieve.

Staff finds this approach irrational, nonsensical and not based on scientific fact.

Continued City Concerns
Requiring the City of Banning to pay into TMDL activities would come at the expense of other General Fund programs, including public safety and parks and recreation, and the annual cost is unknown.

Current minimum costs are $30,000 annually, with ‘significant cost increases’ in the coming years to perhaps more than $100,000/year , not including staff time to attend Task Force meetings, comment on reports and studies, etc. The LE/CL Technical Staff Report that supports the justification of the amendment of the Basin Plan estimates up to greater than $1 Billion in expenses to protect the beneficial uses of the lakes, to be borne by the responsible parties listed in the Basin Plan Amendment. Public Works Engineering Division staff vehemently disagree with this requirement, from a technical, equitable and fiscal perspective and feel it is unfair, unreasonable and not correct.

The Regional Board is obligated under AB2108 (signed by Governor on 9/16/22) that added section 189.7 to the Water Code stating that ‘Outreach to identify issues of environmental justice needs to begin as early as possible in state board or regional board planning, policy, and permitting processes’ and to ‘promoting meaningful civic engagement in the public decision making process.’ This was signed into law 1-year prior to the City of Banning being notified of its inclusion as a responsible party in the Basin Plan Amendment. The only action taken by Region 8 and the Task Force was to include City staff as task force members in mid-March of 2024, about 9 years after the process began, and 8 years after Task Force documents identified Banning as within the watershed. 255
The Regional Board does not acknowledge in their technical studies the areas of the San Jacinto River watershed that were diverted by Interstate 10, or that are outside the City’s jurisdiction in the MS4 Permit as part of the waste load allocation. The technical report perpetuates these errors by allocating waste loads and consideration on 300-acres, and not the 5.5-acres that are within the City’s jurisdiction. There have not been updates by the Task Force that take into consideration the updated facts presented by the City of Banning. Had the City been included with discussion as far back as 2016, these items could have been daylighted and considered in the technical reports.

The Region 8 response did not acknowledge the City’s response that we are being asked to contribute for a solution that the City has not directly caused. The June 25, 2024 letter, shown as attachment 3, states the City's arguments as to why it should not be a responsible party to this Basin Plan Amendment.

The Region 8 response also indicates that it is ‘unsolicitous’ for staff to evaluate individual requests and actions to exempt the City of Banning. It does not acknowledge that the Regional Board had already exempted the City in the initial actions in 2004. Doing so again would not set a new precedent but perpetuate previous Board actions. As noted previously in their response letter, the historic watershed was analyzed not considering diversions and development. The watershed boundaries did not change between 2004 when the City was exempted and with this updated Basin Plan Amendment that was started in 2015.

On February 14, 2025, Region 8 will hold a Public Hearing for the adoption of the Basin Plan Amendment to revise the TMDL. A copy of the City Engineer’s draft comments to the Santa Ana Regional Board February 14, 2025 Meeting adopting the Basin Plan Amendment are included as Att. 7 to this staff report for your consideration.

JUSTIFICATION:

City staff is requesting Council’s concurrence on the approach being taken with Region 8.

At the upcoming Santa Ana Regional Board meeting on Friday, February 14th in Loma Linda, City staff intends on attending and presenting to the Board members its opposition to the City’s inclusion within the Basin Plan and the TMDL. The following are the key points to be included in the letter:

An application has been submitted to designate the portion of the City under Region 8 area to Region 7, consistent with the remainder of the City.

The LE/CL Task Force performed inadequate due diligence and outreach during the 9-year update process to include the City of Banning, only doing so for the last year and a half. Existing law (California Water Code 189.7) requires Regional Water Boards to conduct outreach to identify issues of environmental justice as early as possible in regional board planning, policy, and permitting processes. The City is unaware if Region 8 conducted such activities in the City of Banning.

That Banning is a disadvantaged community, and the full impact of being listed as a responsible entity on the Basin Plan and TMDL may cost in excess of $100,000 annually, taking critical and limited financial resources from Police, Parks, and Streets and Drainage maintenance activity, further reducing the quality of the City’s public services and infrastructure.

The De-Minimus criteria, that Region 8 staff informally believes the City would fall under, will not be developed for 3-years after the Basin Plan is effective, meaning the City would be obligated to implement the TMDL requirements in full and must opt to either (a) pay into the LE/CL Task Force, or (b) implement the requirements on its own until such a date and time that the De-Minimus criteria is established.

The fact that it took 9 years to update the Basin Plan and TMDL does not give confidence that the De-Minimus Study criteria will be established and adopted in the timeframe of three years stated in the Basin Plan and TMDL.

Request that the City of Banning be removed as a responsible party, until the De-Minimus criteria have been established. If the City is found to have an impact, the Basin Plan can be amended to 256
incorporate those additional jurisdictions, after the Study has been completed.

FISCAL IMPACT:

In anticipation of the upcoming new 2025 NPDES Permit cost/fiscal reporting requirements, a new stormwater fund Account 105 was created to track expenses. The TMDL Task Force has not told the City what the annual costs will be, however, Beaumont paid $27,960 for Fiscal Year 2024-25, but that number is anticipated to significantly rise over the next five years due to the tasks required in the Basin Plan Amendment, which are estimated to cost in excess of $1 Billion dollars. The TMDL Task Force has 33 tasks over 30 years, many consultant studies, and those costs are split amongst the 21 cities and agencies in the Task Force group.

ALTERNATIVES:

If the City Council does not agree with the approach to continue to oppose the Santa Ana Regional Board’s actions to include the City in the LE/CL Basin Plan and TMDL, additional cost to the City of Banning that may be in excess of $100,000 annually would be assessed as a responsible party to the Basin Plan, plus unknown additional staff time to attend meetings and prepare reports. City staff would continue to pursue the de-minimus criteria once available from Region 8.

If the City Council has another direction to the approach provided, staff will incorporate said approach into our comments.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Att. 1 Presentation 1.28.25.pdf

2. Att. 2 2024_0130 TMDL Applicibility Response Letter.pdf

3. Att. 3 2024_0626 ROWD Response Letter and Designation Request..pdf

4. Att. 4 2024_0726 Draft Basin Plan Amendment Comment Letter.pdf

5. Att. 5 2024_0913 Comments to Regional Board by NS.pdf

6. Att. 6 2024_1024 RB8 Response Letter.pdf

7. Att. 7 DRAFT PC Script to R8 Board - Feb 14th Meeting v3.1.pdf

8. Att. 8 2016_1005 Source Assessment Draft.pdf

9. Att. 9 2017_0417 CDMSmith Ch6 Allocations First Draft.pdf 257

CITY OF BANNING

WATERSHED PRESENTATION
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Jacinto Watershed and Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL January 28, 2025
258
Agenda
• Regulatory Framework
• Potrero Creek Watershed in the City of
Banning
• Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL
• TMDL Update Timeline
• Unanswered City of Banning Concerns
• Requests of the Regional Board
• Requests for City Council
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
Definitions
• NPDES – National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System: Federal Mandate under
Clean Water Act
• MS4 - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System:

City maintained pipes, channel, inlets, and
basins
• TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load: Maximum
pollutant load allocation to maintain beneficial
uses
• LE/CL – Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
259
Purpose
Actions that are being considered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will have a direct negative financial impact to the City of Banning.

The actions that are being considered have not taken concerns raised by the City of Banning into account
The process by which the City of Banning was notified and included with these actions was improper, delayed, and based on incorrect data
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
260
Regulatory Background
• Regulated by the State Water Resources
Control Board
• The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
complements the Federal Clean Water Act
• State is split into 9 regions
• Banning is within 2 regions
• Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Region 7)
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Region 8)
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
Regulatory Background
Banning
Colorado River Basin Region 7
Santa Ana Region 8
261
Colorado River Basin Region
(Region 7) Whitewater River Watershed
98% of the hydraulic
basin within the City of
Banning is tributary
the Whitewater River
Basin; within Region
7’s jurisdiction
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
Regulatory Background
262
• Historic Watershed is about 300 acres
• Diversions occurred with the
construction of I-10 in the 1950’s
• Sun Lakes is a private MS4, not under
City’s jurisdiction
• Note: Banning is not shown on the
Watershed Map
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
Regulatory Background
Santa Ana Region (Region 8)
San Jacinto River Watershed
Banning
263
Historic Watershed that drains to Portreo Creek is
approximately 300 acres within the City of Banning
Jurisdictional Limits
Potrero Creek is a tributary creek to the San Jacinto
River
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
San Jacinto River
Watershed
264
The construction of I-10 in the 1950’s created a
permanent diversion of water to Smith Creek, in the
Whitewater River.

This covers area north of the Union Pacific Railroad,
including the San Gorgonio Hospital and commercial
district along a portion of Joshua Palmer Way
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
San Jacinto River
Watershed
265
The Sun Lakes community has a private golf course
and private MS4 storm drain system.

Private MS4 is not regulated by the City of Banning’s
MS4 Permit
Areas that drain to a private MS4 are not regulated by
the City’s MS4 system, as the outlet is not to a waters of the United States
This exclusion includes Sun Lakes, the Sun Lakes
Village Shopping Center, and portions of Sun Lakes
Boulevard and Highland Springs Ave
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
San Jacinto River
Watershed
266
After all allowable exclusions, there is approximately

5.5 acres of Highland Springs Ave that drains directly
to Portrero Creek
This is the area of the historic watershed that is
covered under the City’s MS4 permit
San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
San Jacinto River
Watershed
267
Regulatory Background
• Section 13228 of California Water Code allows one
Regional Board to designate MS4 Permit coverage to
another Regional Board
• The City of Banning has requested and submitted
documents to have Region 8 designate the 5.5 acres of
watershed to Region 7
• This action was verbally supported by Region 8 staff, and is currently in process
• Both regions (7 and 8) are adopting new MS4 Permits in 2025, with Region 8 expected to be more stringent and
costly
• This action would save the City in new fees, reporting, training, and regulation by Region 8, with hard costs
between $20,000 to $40,000 annually, plus unknown soft
costs of staff time.

San Jacinto River Watershed

LE/CL TMDL
Banning
268
• Each Regional Board creates a “Basin
Plan” to address water quality concerns
within their region to protect and
enhance a beneficial use
• Includes contact, recreation, drinking
water supply, warm freshwater habitat
• MS4 Permit implements the Basin Plan
• A TMDL is implemented if a water body
cannot meet its stated beneficial use
• A TMDL establishes the maximum
pollutant load to meet the beneficial use
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
Banning
269
• Potrero Creek in Banning drains to the
Potrero Basin, maintained by Riverside
County Flood Control, then through the
San Jacinto River to Mystic Lake, back
through the San Jacinto River to Canyon
Lake, and ultimately to Lake Elsinore
• Both Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore
have significant pollution due to
nutrients, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
• Beneficial Use is designated as Warm
Freshwater Habitat
• The lakes cannot meet the requirements
for Warm Freshwater Habitat
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
Banning
Potrero Creek
San Jacinto River
Mystic Lake
Potrero Basin
270
• Due to algae bloom and fish kills, Region
8 with various agencies developed a Task
Force to explore a TMDL for the Lakes.
• Nutrient TMDL established in 2004
• Task force pools money to fund projects to
improve water quality
• The City of Banning was NOT designated
as a responsible party with the Santa Ana
Basin Plan nor the TMDL
• No records of why Banning was not
included were available.
• Banning was not a Task Force member
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
Banning
271
• June 18, 2015 – TMDL Update Begins
• The Task Force began to update the TMDL in 2015, as the beneficial use was not met over an 11-year period.
• Banning was not a member of the Task Force at this time San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
272
• June 18, 2023 – City notified of its inclusion in the Basin Plan Amendment by Regional Board • 8 Years after the update effort was initiated
• City Staff had a call with Regional Board to determine information, stated time was necessary to complete research and understand the impact
• Banning was not a member of the Task Force at this time San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
273
• January 30, 2024 Letter to Lauren Briggs, Environmental Scientist for Region 8 • Exhibits to show hydrologic disconnection
• Drainage to Mystic Lake, which has not spilled since 1990’s, before the TMDL was established • Identify that mapping was incorrect
• City request for Task Force consultants to provide detail calculations showing Banning’s connections under normal stormwater conditions
• No formal response received until October 24, 2024
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
274
• March 18, 2024 Meeting with Region 8 Staff and Executive Director • Staff stated they would analyze the City’s true contribution to the TMDL and confirm City provided data.
• Agreement that the City’s contribution was “Very Small” • Statement that this was the beginning of future discussions • Notified to complete a Report of Waste Discharge to obtain permit coverage • No formal response received until October 24, 2024
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
275
• June 26, 2024 letter to Ray Akhtarshad, Water Resources Control Engineer • The letter was a response to the request to supply a Report of Waste Discharge • City provided evidence that only 5.5 acres of the City covered MS4 drains to the San Jacinto River, not the incorrectly stated ~300 acres from the LE/CL Task Force • City requested designation of the MS4 Permit to Region 7 • Process of designation is ongoing
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
276
• July 29, 2024 Letter to Tess Dunham, LE/CL Task Force Advisor • Statement to remove the City as a responsible party on the Basin Plan Amendment • Statement that no response was received to the 1/30/24 or 6/26/24 letters • Restatement of request for designation to Region 7
• No formal response received until October 24, 2024
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
277
• September 13, 2024 – Region 8 Board Meeting – Cypress, Ca • A workshop on the Basin Plan Amendment and TMDL was planned but pulled from the agenda prior to publishing.
• City intended to participate in workshop and provide public comment. • City provided public comment on the TMDL. The Board Chair directed staff to respond to the letters submitted by the City
• The Board Chair also allowed for the City to make a future presentation to the Board San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
278
• October 24, 2024 – Response Letter from Region 8 Staff • Statement that City had to remain in TMDL for now
• No regard for the 5.5 acres, errors in maps, disadvantaged community status, or minimal contributions to stormwater runoff to LE/CL
• Reiteration that staff was aware of Banning due to mapping updates in 2023 • This statement is incorrect and not factual
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
279
• October 24, 2024 – Response Letter from Region 8 Staff • Statement that City had to remain in TMDL for now
• No regard for the 5.5 acres, errors in maps, disadvantaged community status, or minimal contributions to stormwater runoff to LE/CL
• Reiteration that staff was aware of Banning due to mapping updates in 2023 • This statement is incorrect and not factual
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
280
• October 24, 2024 – Response Letter from Region 8 Staff • Statement that City had to remain in TMDL for now
• No regard for the 5.5 acres, errors in maps, disadvantaged community status, or minimal contributions to stormwater runoff to LE/CL
• Reiteration that staff was aware of Banning due to mapping updates in 2023 • This statement is incorrect and not factual
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
281
• DRAFT Source Assessment – October 2016
• In Table 4.2, The City is identified as a
jurisdiction within the watershed
• This is 7-years prior to the City being
made aware of its inclusion by Regional
Board staff
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
Region 8 Response
282
• DRAFT Source Assessment – October 2016
• In Table 4.2, The City is identified as a
jurisdiction within the watershed
• This is 7-years prior to the City being
made aware of its inclusion by Regional
Board staff
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
Region 8 Response
Source
Assessment
Draft
283
• TDM Smith Draft Study – April 2017
• In Table 6.3, the City is identified with a
proposed waste load allocation
• In Table 6.4, the City is identified as a
Point Source with NPDES Permits
• This is 6-years prior to the City being
made aware of its inclusion by Regional
Board staff
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
Region 8 Response
Source
Assessment
Draft
284
• TDM Smith Draft Study – April 2017
• In Table 6.3, the City is identified with a
proposed waste load allocation
• In Table 6.4, the City is identified as a
Point Source with NPDES Permits
• This is 6-years prior to the City being
made aware of its inclusion by Regional
Board staff
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
Region 8 Response
Source
Assessment
Draft
TDM Smith
Study
285
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
6/18/15 TMDL
Update Begins
June – City
Notification
Recieved
1 st City Response
RWQCB Meeting
2 nd City Response
3 rd City Letter
Public Hearing
Region 8 Response
Source
Assessment
Draft
TDM Smith
Study
Delay in Notification to City – 7 Years
286
• The Basin Plan proposed a ‘De-Minimus’
Study to be prepared for minor
contributors to the watershed
• To be completed within 3 years of the
Basin Plan Amendment effective date
• The City of Banning anticipates our
stormwater flows to fall under the ‘DeMinimus’ standards • Any Amendment to the Basin Plan
requires separate approval from the
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Administrative Law and from
the US EPA.

San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
(LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
Banning
287
• The Regional Board states that the City MUST be a responsible party on the Basin Plan Amendment until the de-minimus study is completed.
• Obligates the City to participate in funding for the task force and implementation of the TMDL project costs
• Overall TMDL projects are expected to cost more that $1 Billion to implement • After a De-Minimus Study is completed, and if the City is found to be a de-minimus contributor, a further Basin Plan Amendment would be required to remove the City of Banning • This current update has taken 10-years to complete
• Until a future Basin Plan Amendment is effective, the City is a responsible party, and subject to project costs and implementation requirements.
• Staff feels this approach is irrational, nonsensical, and not based on scientific fact San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL (LE/CL) TMDL Task Force
De-Minimus Process
288
• Funding of participation as a responsible party to the Basin Plan and the TMDL • Current minimum costs are $30,000 annually
• Estimated TMDL implementation costs exceed $1 Billion to protect the beneficial use of the lakes • “Significant cost increases” anticipated to implement the plan, likely driving minimum costs over $100,000 annually, not including staff time for Task Force participation, training, reviews, special studies, or field assessments for compliance.
• As an unfunded mandate, the City would be required to reallocate funding from other General Fund programs to cover these project costs.

San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Continued Concerns from
the City of Banning
289
• Lack of required outreach by the Regional Board
• AB2108 (signed by Governor on 9/16/22) amended Water Code section 289.7 • “Outreach to identify issues of environmental justice needs to begin as early as possible in state board or regional board planning, policy, and permitting process” and “to promote meaningful civic engagement in the public decision making process”
• Policy was enacted 9-months prior to any notification from the Regional Board, and 7-years after Task Force technical studies identified Banning within them • The Regional Board has not conducted any outreach to the Community, Council, or local interests San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Continued Concerns from
the City of Banning
290
• Inaccuracies in technical studies that are the basis for the revised TMDL • The Task Force has not acknowledged the technical inaccuracies brought to their attention with previous City correspondence.
• City can not be responsible for portions of the watershed outside of the City’s MS4 Permit • Proposed allocations in the TMDL are based on these inaccuracies • City has identified 5.5-acres within it’s MS4, Task Force estimates 300-acres. This is 55x the area the City has actual jurisdiction over.
• Allocations are based on 300-acres, or 55x greater than they would if the technical studies were correct
• This creates Environmental Justice concerns, as the City is being disproportionally liable for areas outside its control
• These items could have been daylighted and addressed if the Task Force included the City starting in 2016, when technical reports included Banning
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Continued Concerns from
the City of Banning
291
• No response from the Regional Board to the City’s comment that we are being asked to contribute to a solution for a problem that the City did not create • Mystic Lake is an intermediate sump along the San Jacinto River, and ephermal lake. • Water has not spilled from Mystic Lake since the 1990’s, prior to the establishment of the 2004 TMDL
• This means that no water from the City of Banning has reached either Canyon Lake or Lake Elsinore since the 1990’s
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Continued Concerns from
the City of Banning
292
• Misplaced concern about precedent setting
• Regional Board response states it is ‘unsolicitous’ for staff to review individual agency requests and actions to exempt the City of Banning.
• However, the previous precedent for this TMDL was established in 2004 when Banning was not included as a responsible party.
• The historic watershed has not changed between 2004 and now • Exclusion of the City of Banning maintains the status-quo, and does not establish a new precedent San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Continued Concerns from
the City of Banning
293
Any motion to adopt the Basin Plan Amendment include the following statement ➢ Remove the City of Banning as a responsible party with THIS basin plan amendment ➢ Direction to the Task Force to complete the De-Minimus criteria in the prescribed 3-year timeframe ➢ Direction to the Task Force to remain engaged with City of Banning staff during De-Minimus preparation and evaluation
➢ Direction to the Task Force to re-evaluate the City of Banning’s stormwater quality, and if necessary, prepare a separate Basin Plan Amendment to include the City of Banning San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL City of Banning Requests to
the Regional Board and LE/CL Task Force
294
The City of Banning commits to the following items during the 3-Year De-Minimus criteria preparation
➢ Continue to participate in the LE/CL Task Force
➢ To monitor stormwater quality at the outfall to Potrero Creek, in association with Riverside County Flood Control District to develop testing protocols and begin to gather data that the other regulated jurisdictions have been completing for over 20-years
➢ Continue discussions with Task Force and Regional Board staff ➢ Continue with MS4 Designation efforts from Region 8 to Region 7 San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL City of Banning Commitments to
The Regional Board and LE/CL Task Force
295
Engineering Division staff is looking for concurrence from City Council regarding upcoming actions to the Regional Board for Region 8
➢ Provide presentation at February 14th, 2025 Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Basin Plan Update
➢ Concurrence with requests to the Regional Board and City Commitments ➢ Confirmation of Council participation at the Regional Board hearing on 2/14/25 If Council feels additional or different information is necessary, to provide that guidance to Engineering Division Staff
San Jacinto River Watershed
LE/CL TMDL Requests to City Council
296
Thank You
Nate Smith, PE
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
[email protected]
297
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 City of Banning
January 30, 2024
Lauren Briggs
Environmental Scientist
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
3737 Main Street, Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Comments on the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Draft Basin Plan Amendment and Technical Staff Report
Dear Ms. Briggs:

The City of Banning (City) has been made aware of proposed updates to the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL (LE/CL TMDL). The proposed changes, among other items, looks to capture all municipalities within the San Jacinto subwatershed into the TMDL Fee Structure program. The City understands the intent of the update, but objects its inclusion in the LE/CL TMDL Program; based on points detailed below and in the attached exhibits.

Inadequate Opportunity Was Provided to the City in the Development of the Basin Plan Amendment and Technical Staff Report
According to the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority’s (SAWPA) website for the LE/CL Task Force1, preparation of the Basin Plan Amendment and the Draft Technical Staff Report began in 2016. However, the City was only notified of its inclusion into the proposed TMDL amendment by Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) staff during a July 17, 2023 virtual meeting. Further, the City has not been included in meeting invitations nor has it been included on the review of the subject documents by the Santa Ana Water Board. Since then, the City has received pressure from the Santa Ana Water Board to review over seven years of updates and provide data and comments. As a result, the City reserves the right to provide additional comments as needed.

Applicability
The City of Banning is a Co-Permittee under Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R7-2013-0011, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Within the Whitewater River Watershed, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1 https://sawpa.gov/task-force/lake-elsinore-and-canyon-lake-tmdl-task-force/ 298
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 Permit No. CAS617002 (Whitewater River MS4 Permit). The vast majority of the hydraulic basin within the City of Banning is tributary to that region. There is a very small portion of the City that drains to Potrero Creek, consisting of approximately 300 acres (“Banning Potrero Creek Tributary”), out of the City’s 23.2 square miles, or representing 2% of the total land area of the City. Furthermore, this portion of the City that lies within the 780 square mile San Jacinto subwatershed accounts for only 0.0006% of the entire subwatershed.

The hydraulic boundary maps, supplied by GEI Consultants to the City of Banning for review, do not reflect the built conditions within the City but rely on old topographic data.

The City objects to its inclusion in the LE/CL TMDL based solely on old topographic data.

For example, there are no runoff flows from within the City of Banning north of Interstate 10 that are tributary to Potrero Creek. When the interstate was constructed in the late 1950’s, water from the north was collected in a system of ditches and diverted easterly to Smith Creek within the Whitewater River Region. Development patterns south of the freeway have also been modified. Historic portions of Potrero Creek that flowed from within the City of Beaumont, then through the City of Banning, have been re-routed into a storm drain system and no longer collect or convey stormwater from within the City of Banning.

Hydrologic and Geographic Disconnection
The discharge point for storm drain systems from the City of Banning are located just south of the intersection of Highland Springs Ave and Breckenridge Ave. The combined flows then travel through Potrero Canyon into Potrero Creek. From there, Potrero Creek follows an approximate 3.5-mile distance through generally sandy, barren land with limited vegetation. The lack of vegetation along the flow path indicates a scarcity of water and high natural infiltration of the watercourse. At the end of this section, Potrero Creek converges with another tributary from the east. The converged stream continues for another 4.5 miles to a regional detention basin (“Potrero Basin”) maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). In just this first segment of Potrero Creek, water must travel through nearly eight miles of natural creek in land that is designated as open space with limited to no development potential.

The expected volume of water over that distance provides for natural attenuation of the water even before it reaches RCFC&WCD’s Potrero Basin.

RCFC&WCD’s Potrero Basin (see Exhibit E) is generally located east of the intersection of the San Jacinto River and State-Route 79, and north of the City of San Jacinto. The outflow from the basin is controlled by a weir/spillway structure. Water in the basin would need to overtop the weir before spilling into the San Jacinto River. The basin has a capacity of 60,000 cubic yards or 37.2 acre-feet, far exceeding the runoff potential from the 300 acres within the City of Banning. Flows up to 37.2 acre-feet are stored in Potrero Basin before they spill into the San Jacinto River, which contains porous sands that exhibit high infiltration rates.

Remaining flows, if any, continue into the San Jacinto River for approximately four miles before draining into Mystic Lake through a break in the river’s north levee located west of 299
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 Bridge Street, as shown on Exhibit F. This lake sits as a natural sump within the Santa Ana River watershed. Section 4.1.2.5 of the Draft Technical Staff Report states that subsidence of land within Mystic Lake is continually adding an estimated 200 acre-feet of storage capacity each year; currently the lake has a capacity of approximately 17,000 acre-feet. RCFC&WCD has a flow monitoring station set at the outflow of the lake, and the last recorded flows out of the lake are from 1998. As noted in the past four LE/CL TMDL Annual Monitoring Reports2, wet weather samples were not collected from the nearest downstream flow gage and monitoring station, San Jacinto River at Ramona Expressway (Station ID 741), due to insufficient flow because Mystic Lake did not overflow. From Mystic Lake, water would have to flow an additional 15 miles in the San Jacinto River to reach Canyon Lake. This 15-mile river reach similarly contains porous sands that offer additional infiltration.

Figure 1 depicts discharge rates over a 10-year period (January 1, 2014 – January 1, 2024) at the San Jacinto River at Ramona Expressway Station, located approximately 16 miles downstream of Banning’s discharge location. According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), since the flow gage’s installation in 2001, the maximum discharge occurred on February 14, 2019 at a rate of 5.33 cubic feet per second (cfs).

The RCFC&WCD’s nearest rain gage, #161 San Jacinto Valley, recorded 2.6 inches of rain on the aforementioned date, which corresponds to the 100-year storm event. Due to the distance between this gage station and Canyon Lake, the high, natural infiltration rates of the San Jacinto River, and the fact that Mystic Lake has not overflowed, it is highly likely that runoff at the station was only from localized flooding and even that local runoff likely did not make it to Canyon Lake.

If Mystic Lake isn’t spilling during one of California’s wettest years on record (Water Year 2022-23) nor during the 100-year storm event, and recorded flows at the nearest downstream gage station are minimal and likely originate from localized flooding, then it is evident that runoff from the City of Banning does not reach Canyon Lake. Furthermore, given the small tributary area and flows from the City of Banning in normal conditions through the various flow paths, detention basins, and natural sumps, it seems highly plausible that the City of Banning is hydrologically and geographically disconnected from Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake for any non-stormwater and stormwater discharges. 2 Accessible from https://sawpa.gov/task-force/lake-elsinore-and-canyon-lake-tmdl-task-force/ 300
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 Figure 1 – Daily Discharge at USGS Gage San Jacinto River at Ramona Expressway (January 1, 2014 – January 1, 2024)
The Cost of the Proposed Revisions Greatly Exceeds the Value of Benefits CalEPA has recognized and classified many communities in Banning as disadvantaged, meaning we lack the fiscal resources compared to more affluent areas. 3 Based on the
Economic Considerations section (Section 10) of the Draft Technical Staff Report, the true cost to implement the tasks listed in Table 7-7 and Figure 10-1 of the Draft Technical Staff Report would be expected to run in the tens of millions of dollars. The proportion allocated to Banning is not specified in the Draft Technical Staff Report. Such expenditures will face objections from our elected officials and the citizens in Banning who will be required to fund them.

The Draft Technical Staff Report proposes that 300 acres in Banning drains into Canyon Lake, and therefore, the City must pay for compliance efforts towards the LE/CL TMDL.

As noted above, the portion of Banning that lies within the San Jacinto subwatershed accounts for 0.0006% of area within the subwatershed. Including the City as a responsible party under the TMDL, where we would have to pay towards the TMDL’s fee 3 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1c21c53da8de48f1b946f3402fbae55c/page/SB-535- Disadvantaged-Communities/
301
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 structure program, would impact the City disproportionately when compared to the proposed benefits. Diversion of resources from real public needs to water quality monitoring and efforts to reduce nutrient levels in a lake that would not receive runoff from Banning in the vast majority of circumstances is a poor use of finite public resources.

Section 10 of the Draft Technical Staff Report lacks sufficient detail describing how MS4 Permittees would source funding for TMDL compliance. The economic analysis does not demonstrate that there are reasonable, economically feasible means to comply with the provisions of the Basin Plan Amendment (in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21159). Section 10.2 identifies sources of funding to address the TMDL for the agricultural operators in the San Jacinto subwatershed, but the Draft Technical Staff Report fails to identify sources of funding for MS4 Permittees for TMDL compliance.

Conclusion
The City of Banning objects to our inclusion within the LE/CL TMDL given the lack of evidence provided that there is a hydrologic and geographic connection between the City and the lakes. The City requests that the Santa Ana Water Board remove the City of Banning as a responsible party under the TMDL in the proposed Basin Plan Amendment and Technical Staff Report.

Sincerely,
Doug Schulze Art Vela, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
City of Banning City of Banning
Encl:

Exhibit A: Overall Watershed Map
Exhibit B: City of Banning Watershed Map
Exhibit C: Modified Task Force Watershed Map
Exhibit D: Potrero Creek Detail
Exhibit E: Potrero Creek to RCFCD Detention Basin Exhibit Exhibit F: Banning to Lake Elsinore Flow Paths
Exhibit G: City of Banning Stormwater Ordinance
DS/AV/ns
302
303

PQRSTU V
304
305
Portrero Creek Detail (City of Banning to Convergence Point) 306
Portrero Creek to RCFCD Detention Facility
307
Relation of Banning to Lake Elsinore
308
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 1/16
A.

B.

C.

A.

Chapter 13.24 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

13.24.010 - Title.

The ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known as the "City of Banning Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Code", or the "Stormwater Code" for short, and may be so cited.
(Code 1965, § 34-1.)
(Ord. No. 1415, § 1, 1-12-10)

13.24.020 - Purpose and intent.

The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens by:

Regulating nonstormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm drain; and Controlling the discharge to municipal separate storm drains from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater; and
Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

The intent of this chapter is to protect and enhance the water quality of city watercourses, water bodies, groundwater, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act. (Code 1965, § 34-2.)

13.24.030 - Definitions.

The terms as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings:

Best management practice (BMP). "BMP" or "BMPs" mean schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, maintenance procedures, educational programs, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to waters of the United States. BMPs shall include treatment requirements, 309
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 2/16
B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

J.

K.

L.
operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw materials storage. The California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for Municipal, Industrial/Commercial and Construction Activity provide a detailed discussion of BMPs.
"Detention Basin" refers to a basin type structure which permits large flows of stormwater to enter and remain, but limits and controls the outflow (i.e., discharge) by having a small opening at the lowest point of the structure. "Director" means the director of the public works department of the City of Banning. "Enforcement officer" includes the city manager, public works director, city engineer, building and safety official, code enforcement officer, and their designees.
"Illicit connection" means any physical connection to a storm drain system which has not been permitted by the City of Banning, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, or other appropriate public agency. "Illegal discharge" means any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of stormwater runoff except discharges made pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or as otherwise authorized by the Santa Ana or Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board. "Infiltration basin" refers to designs and/or practices for directing stormwater from a basin type of structure to the groundwater table through permeable soils.
"Municipal NPDES permit" means an area-wide NPDES permit issued to a government agency or agencies for the discharge of stormwater from a stormwater system, and shall refer to NPDES permit number CAS617002 (R7-2008-0001) or its successor. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit" means a stormwater discharge permit issued by the Santa Ana or Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. "Nonstormwater discharge" means any discharge to the storm drain system that is not entirely composed of stormwater. "Person" means any natural person, firm, association, club, organization, corporation, partnership, business trust, company or other entity which is recognized by law as the subject of rights or duties. "Pollutant" means anything which causes the deterioration of water quality such that it impairs subsequent and/or competing uses of the water. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to, paints, oil and other automotive fluids, soil, rubbish, trash, garbage, debris, refuse, waste, fecal coliform, fecal streptococcus, enterococcus, heavy metals, hazardous waste, chemicals, fresh 310
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 3/16
M.

N.

O.

P.
concrete, yard waste from commercial landscaping operations, animal waste, materials that result from the process of constructing a building or structure, nauseous or offensive matter of any kind. "Premises" means any building, lot, parcel of land, or portion of land whether improved or unimproved. "Retention basin" allows for relatively large flows of stormwater to enter in a basin type of structure during large storm events for which discharges are limited by outlet structures to a storm drain, the street, or other parts of the storm drain system. This type of basin notably has an outlet or discharge point so that stormwater does not accumulate in the basin for extended periods of time, when feasible, such that the stormwater permeates to a groundwater table. "Storm drain system" means any facility by which stormwater may be conveyed to waters of the United States. The storm drain system includes, but is not limited to, any roads with drainage systems, streets, curbs, gutters, catch basins, natural and artificial channels, ditches, aqueducts, storm drains, inlets, conduit or other drainage structures. "Stormwater runoff" means surface runoff and drainage associated with rainstorm events and snow melt. (Code 1965, § 34-3.) (Ord. No. 1415, § 2, 1-12-10)

13.24.040 - Responsibility for administration.

This chapter shall be administered for the city by the director of public works. (Code 1965, § 34-4.)

13.24.050 - Regulatory consistency.

This chapter shall be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, applicable implementing regulations, and any existing or future municipal NPDES permits and any amendments, revisions or reissuance thereof.
(Code 1965, § 34-5.)

13.24.060 - Discharge of pollutants.

A nonstormwater discharge to the storm drain system is a violation of this chapter. 311
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 4/16
A.

B.

A.

B.

C.

A.

B.

1. The prohibition of discharges shall not apply to any discharge regulated under a NPDES permit or waiver issued to the discharger and administered by the state of California under the authority of the EPA, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit or waiver and other applicable laws or regulations.

Discharges from the following activities will not be considered a source of pollutants to waters of the United States when properly managed: water line flushing and other discharges from potable water sources, landscape irrigation and lawn watering, irrigation water, diverted stream flows, rising groundwaters, infiltration to separate storm drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation and footing drains, water from crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges or flows from fire fighting. (Code 1965, § 34-7.)

13.24.070 - Discharge in violation of permit.

Any discharge that results in or contributes to a violation of an existing or future municipal NPDES permit(s) and any amendment, revision or reissuance thereof, either separately considered or when combined with other discharges, is a violation of this chapter and is prohibited.

Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person(s) causing or responsible for the discharge, and such persons shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city in any administrative or judicial enforcement action relating to such discharge.

A copy of the current municipal NPDES permit will be filed in the city clerk's office. (Code 1965, § 34-8.) (Ord. No. 1415, § 3, 1-12-10)

13.24.080 - Illicit connections and illegal discharges.

It is a violation of this chapter to establish, use, maintain, or continue an illicit connection to the city's storm drain system, or to commence or continue any illegal discharge to the city's storm drain system. The prohibition against illicit connections is expressly retroactive and applies to past illicit connections when made.

Illegal discharges include, without limitation, the following:

Discharges of wash water resulting from the hosing or cleaning of gas stations, auto repair garages, or other types of automotive services facilities;
312
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 5/16

2. 3.

4. 5.

A.

B.

C.

A.

Discharges resulting from the cleaning, repair, or maintenance of any type of equipment or machinery including motor vehicles, cement-related equipment, and port-a-potty service;
Discharges of wash water from mobile operations such as oily or greasy discharges from mobile automobile washing or similar mobile services, and/or discharges from steam cleaning, power washing, and carpet cleaning; Discharges of runoff from material storage areas containing chemicals, fuels, grease, oil, or other hazardous materials as that term is defined by the federal Department of Transportation; and Discharges of food-related wastes, including without limitation, grease, fish processing, and restaurant kitchen mat and trash bin wash water. (Code 1965, § 34-9.)
(Ord. No. 1415, § 4, 1-12-10)

13.24.090 - Reduction of pollutants in stormwater.

It is a violation of this chapter to throw, deposit, leave, maintain, keep, or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained, any pollutant, including but not limited to refuse, rubbish, garbage, abandoned vehicles or other discarded or abandoned objects, articles, and accumulation, in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place, or upon any public or private plot of land in the city.

It is an exception to the above that such pollutant is being temporarily placed in an appropriate container with a spill containment system for later collection and removal.

It is a violation of this chapter to cause or permit any Dumpster, solid waste bin, or similar container to leak such that any pollutant is discharged into any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place, or upon any public or private plot of land in the city.
(Code 1965, § 34-10.)

13.24.100 - Outdoor storage areas—Commercial and industrial facilities.

It is a violation of this chapter for any person to improperly store grease, oil or other hazardous substances in outdoor areas such that any of these substances may leak or otherwise discharge from the container in which the substance is stored. In outdoor areas, no person shall improperly store motor vehicles, machine parts, or other objects in a manner that may leak grease, oil, or other hazardous substances.
313
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 6/16
B.

C.

D.

To prevent the discharge of hazardous substances from the property, the city shall require the installation of a spill containment system. Spill containment systems may consist of a system of dikes, walls, barriers, berms, or other devices as required.

It is a violation of this chapter for any person to operate a spill containment system such that it allows incompatible liquids to mix and thereby create a hazardous condition.

Any person or entity that owns or operates a commercial and/or industrial facility(s) shall comply with the provisions of this chapter.

All such facilities shall be subject to inspection as required by this chapter, California Water Code §§ 13000 et seq. (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act), Title 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (Clean Water Act), any applicable state or federal regulations promulgated thereto, and any related administrative orders or permits issued in connection therewith. (Ord. No. 1965, § 34-11.) (Ord. No. 1415, § 5, 1-12-10)

13.24.110 - Construction sites and onsite storage and infiltration of stormwater.

Any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and the Uniform Building Code, latest edition, for erosion and sediment control, as well as City of Banning Ordinance 1388 which is incorporated by reference hereto. In addition, except as waived by or agreed to by the director or the director's designee consistent with NPDES permit provisions and requirements, development of all land within the city must include provisions for the management of stormwater runoff from the property which is to be developed, including volumetric or flow based treatment control BMP design criteria, and/or exceptions to these requirements, and methodologies used to ensure proper management of stormwater runoff post-construction. This management shall consist of constructing storage and/or infiltration facilities, which includes basins. At a minimum, all development will make provisions to store runoff from rainfall events up to and including the one-hundred-year, three-hour duration event. Post-development peak urban runoff discharge rates shall not exceed pre-development peak urban runoff discharge rates.

The city engineer shall be provided for review, comment and/or approval the drainage study, hydrologic analysis and design of drainage facilities prepared by a licensed professional engineer. (Code 1965, § 34-12.) (Ord. No. 1415, § 6, 1-12-10)

13.24.120 - New development and redevelopment.
314
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 7/16
A.

B.

1. a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

C.

1. Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The director shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall indentify the manner of implementation.

Any new development or redevelopment project shall control the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from the project so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality which would impair the subsequent or competing uses of the water. The director shall establish written retention standards and guidelines and/or implement BMPs designed to control the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from new developments and redevelopments as may be appropriate to minimize the discharge and transport of pollutants.

The standards, guidelines and BMPs shall include a provision permitting adjustments for specific projects where the director finds that due to unique circumstances not generally applicable to other properties, such adjustments are required but in such circumstances the director shall provide a written finding.

All new development and redevelopment projects that fall into one of the following categories are subject to the Water Quality Management Plan Design Standards for Best Management Practices as set forth in the NPDES permit number CAS617002 (Section F.1.c.), which is incorporated by reference hereto, a copy of which is available in the city clerk's office:

Single-family hillside residences that create ten thousand square feet, or more, of impervious area where the natural slope is twenty-five percent or greater, including single-family hillside residences that create ten thousand square feet of impervious area where the natural slope is ten percent or greater where erosive soil conditions are known; Ten thousand square foot commercial and industrial developments; Automotive repair shops (with standard industrial classification ("SIC") codes 5013, 7532, 7533, 7534, 7537, 7438, and 7539); Retail gasoline outlets disturbing greater than five thousand square feet; Restaurants disturbing greater than five thousand square feet; Home subdivisions with ten or more housing units; and
Parking lots five thousand square feet or more or with twenty-five or more parking spaces and potentially exposed to nonstormwater discharges.

Acceptable methods and standards for controlling stormwater runoff volumes, rates, and pollutant load may include, but are not limited to, the following:
315
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 8/16

2. 3.

4. D.

E.

F.

A.

B.

1. Increase Permeable Areas. Avoid placing impervious surfaces in highly porous soil areas; incorporate landscaping and open space into the project design; use porous materials for or near driveways and walkways; incorporate detention ponds and infiltration pits into the project's design; avoid placing pavement and other impervious surfaces in low-lying areas.

Direct Runoff to Permeable Areas. Direct stormwater runoff away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds, and french drains. Install rain gutters and orient them toward permeable areas. Modify the grade of the property to divert flow to permeable areas and minimize the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the property. When designing curbs, berms or other structures, avoid designs which isolate permeable or landscaped areas.

Maximize Stormwater Storage for Reuse. Use retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns, or other structures to store stormwater runoff for reuse or slow release.

Any new development shall comply with the provisions of this chapter, City of Banning Ordinance 1388 and the municipal NPDES permit, all of which are incorporated by reference hereto.

In the event the municipal NPDES permit is modified, the Director is authorized to apply the criteria of such successor permit.

In addition to the foregoing provisions, all existing and new development and redevelopment plans shall comply with stormwater code Section 13.24.110.

Any violation of this section is punishable as provided in the Banning Municipal Code including this chapter. In addition, fines may be imposed on a schedule agreed to between the city and any person or entity seeking to engage in a development or redevelopment project in the city. (Code 1965, § 34-13.)
(Ord. No. 1415, § 7, 1-12-10)

13.24.125 - Issuance, suspension and revocation of permits or licenses.

No permit or license shall be issued unless it is in accordance with all the provisions of city ordinances as codified in the Banning Municipal Code, including Titles 5, 13 and 15, and any permit or license issued contrary to the provisions of the Banning Municipal Code shall be void and of no effect.

An enforcement officer, after compliance with the procedures hereunder, may revoke or suspend a permit or license issued by the city upon a finding that:

The permittee or licensee has violated any of the conditions or requirements of the permit or license, or provisions of the Banning Municipal Code and any ordinances, rules or regulations pertaining to the permit or license; or 316
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 9/16

2. 3.

C.

A.

B.

The permit or license was issued in error; or
The permit or license was issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied by the permittee or licensee.

Revocation or suspension of a permit or license issued by the city is proper when written notice of the violation(s) has been sent to the permittee or licensee by first class mail and the permittee or licensee has failed or neglected to correct the violation within twenty days from the date the written notice was mailed.
(Ord. No. 1415, § 8, 1-12-10)

13.24.130 - Compliance with general permits.

Any industrial discharger, discharger associated with construction activity, or other discharger subject to any NPDES permit issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall comply with all requirements of such permit.

Proof of compliance with the municipal NPDES permit will be required in a form acceptable to the director prior to issuance of any city grading, building, or occupancy permits. Due to requirements set forth in the NPDES permit changing from time to time, said compliance with the municipal NPDES permit requires compliance with the most recent NPDES permit on file in the city clerk's office. (Code 1965, § 34-14.)
(Ord. No. 1415, § 9, 1-12-10)

13.24.140 - Compliance with BMPs.

Where BMP guidelines or requirements have been adopted by any federal, state of California, regional, and/or local agency, for any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to stormwater pollution or contamination, illicit discharges, and/or discharge of nonstormwater to the stormwater system, every person undertaking such activity or operation, or owning or operating such facility shall comply with guidelines or requirements as may be identified by the director. (Code 1965, § 34-15.)

13.24.150 - Authority to inspect.
317
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 10/16
A.

B.

1. 2.

C.

D.

E.

Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this chapter or the municipal NPDES permit, or whenever an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises any condition which constitutes a violation of the provisions of this chapter, the enforcement officer may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or perform any duty imposed upon the enforcement officer by this chapter.

Entry hereunder shall be subject to the following:

If such building or premises be occupied, an enforcement officer shall first present proper credentials and request entry; and If such building or premises be unoccupied, an enforcement officer shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or obtain a warrant to enter.

Any request for entry made hereunder shall state that the property owner or occupant has the right to refuse entry and that in the event such entry is refused, inspection may be made only upon issuance of a search warrant by a duly authorized magistrate. In the event the owner and/or occupant refuses entry after such request has been made, the official is empowered to seek assistance from any court of competent jurisdiction in obtaining such entry.

Routine or area inspections shall be based upon such reasonable selection processes as may be deemed necessary to carry out the objectives of this chapter and the municipal NPDES permit, including, but not limited to, random sampling and/or sampling in areas with evidence of stormwater contamination, illicit connections, illegal discharges, nonstormwater discharge to the stormwater system, follow up inspections as required by the County of Riverside, the Compliance Assistance Program ("CAP") of the NPDES permit, or the California State Water Quality Regional Control Board, or similar factors.

The property owner and/or occupant are liable for inspection fees as set forth in the city's adopted fee schedule through City Resolution 2006-114 duly adopted on September 12, 2006, which may be amended by the city council from time to time. (Code 1965, § 34-16.)
(Ord. No. 1415, § 10, 1-12-10)

13.24.160 - Authority to sample and establish sampling devices.

With the consent of the owner or occupant or pursuant to a search warrant, any authorized enforcement officer may establish on any property such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling or metering operations. During all inspections as provided herein, the enforcement officer may take any samples deemed necessary to aid in the pursuit of the inquiry or in the recordation of the activities on-site. 318
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 11/16
A.

B.

A.

B.

1. 2.

3. (Code 1965, § 34-17.)

13.24.170 - Notification of spills.

All persons in charge of a facility or responsible for emergency response for a facility are personally responsible to train facility personnel and maintain notification procedures to assure that immediate notification is provided to the city of any suspected, confirmed or unconfirmed release of material, pollutants or waste creating a risk of discharge into the city storm drain system.

As soon as any person in charge of a facility or responsible for emergency response for a facility has the knowledge described in subsection A of this section, such person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release, and shall notify the city of the occurrence by telephoning and confirming the notification by correspondence to the director of the public works department and fire department.
(Code 1965, § 34-18.)

13.24.180 - Requirement to test or monitor.

An enforcement officer may request that any person engaged in any activity and/or owning or operating any facility which may cause or contribute to stormwater runoff, illicit connections, illegal discharges, and/or discharge of pollutants or nonstormwater to the stormwater system, undertake such monitoring activities and/or analyses and furnish such reports as the enforcement officer may specify. The burden, including costs, of these activities, analyses and reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the monitoring, analyses and reports and the benefits to be obtained. The recipient of such request shall undertake and provide the monitoring, analyses and/or reports requested within a reasonable time frame as set forth by the enforcement officer or as agreed to between the enforcement officer and the person.

In the event the owner or operator of a facility subject to a monitoring and/or analyses order fails to conduct required monitoring and/or analyses and furnish the required reports in the form required, an enforcement officer may cause such monitoring and/or analyses to be performed within thirty days.

The costs, therefore, including the reasonable additional administrative costs incurred by the city, shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property and/or the person or entity in possession of the property.

The costs thereof shall be invoiced to the owner of the property and/or the person or entity in possession of the property. 319
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 12/16

4. A.

B.

A.

1. 2.

B.

1. 2.

3. C.

D.

If the invoice is not paid within sixty days of the issuance thereof, the costs may be levied as a lien upon and against the property and continue in existence until the same shall be paid consistent with the Banning Municipal Code including Chapter 8.48.

If the lien is not satisfied by the owner of the property within three months after the completion by an enforcement officer of the required monitoring and/or analyses and reports, the property may be sold in satisfaction thereof in a like manner as other real property is sold under execution. (Code 1965, § 34-19.) (Ord. No. 1415, § 11, 1-12-10)

13.24.190 - Violations constituting misdemeanors.

Unless otherwise specified by ordinance, the violation of any provision of this chapter, or failure to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any such violation constituting a misdemeanor under this chapter, at the discretion of the authorized enforcement officer may be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. (Code 1965, § 34-20.)

13.24.200 - Penalties.

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this chapter.

Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified.

Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is committed, continued, or permitted.

Any person so convicted shall be:

Guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation; Guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for a second violation; The third and any additional violations shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or six months in jail, or both.

Notwithstanding the above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve a person from the responsibility for correcting the violation. 320
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 13/16
A.

B.

C.
(Code 1965, § 34-21.)

13.24.210 - Concealment.

Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing a violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a violation of such provision. (Code 1965, § 34-22.)

13.24.220 - Violations deemed a public nuisance.

In addition to the penalties hereinbefore provided, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and may be declared and deemed a nuisance, and may be summarily abated and/or restored by an enforcement officer, and/or civil action to abate, enjoin or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken as authorized by the Banning Municipal Code including Chapter 8.48 or in any other manner provided by law.

If any violation of this chapter constitutes a seasonal and recurrent nuisance, the director shall so declare. Thereafter such seasonal and recurrent nuisance shall be abated every year without the necessity of any further hearing.

In any administrative or civil proceeding under this chapter in which the city prevails, the city shall be awarded all costs of investigation, administrative overhead, out-of-pocket expenses, costs of administrative hearing, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees.
(Code 1965, § 34-23.)
(Ord. No. 1415, § 12, 1-12-10)

13.24.225 - Payment of abatement costs, penalties or damages.

If payment of an award of abatement costs, penalties or damages is not made within ten days of an administrative or judicial determination of such costs, penalties or damages, the enforcement officer may file a notice of lien as provided for in the Banning Municipal Code, Chapter

8.48, describing the real property affected and the amount of the costs, penalties or damages claimed by the city with the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County. The enforcement officer may transmit the judgment or award of abatement costs, penalties or damages of the 321
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 14/16
A.

B.

C.

D.
city, which shall place the amount thereof on the assessment roll as a special assessment to be paid with county taxes, unless paid earlier. A judgment or award of such costs, penalties or damages may also be enforced in any other manner provided by law, including the property being sold under execution if the recorded lien remains unpaid for at least three months. (Ord. No. 1415, § 13, 1-12-10)

13.24.230 - Judicial review.

The provisions of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to judicial review of city decisions pursuant to this chapter.
(Code 1965, § 34-24.)

13.24.240 - Civil actions.

In addition to any other remedies provided herein, this chapter may be enforced by civil action brought by the city. In any such action, the city shall grant, as appropriate, any or all of the following remedies:

A temporary and/or permanent injunction;
Assessment of the violator for the costs of any investigation, inspection, or monitoring survey which led to the establishment of the violation, and for the reasonable costs and attorney's fees of preparing and bringing legal action under this subsection.

Costs incurred in removing, correcting, or terminating the adverse effects resulting from the violation; Compensatory damages for loss or destruction to water quality, wildlife, fish and aquatic life. Assessments under this section shall be paid to the city to be used exclusively for costs associated with monitoring and establishing stormwater discharge pollution control systems and/or implementing or enforcing the provisions of this chapter. (Code 1965, § 34-25.)
(Ord. No. 1415, § 14, 1-12-10)

13.24.250 - Cease and desist orders.
322
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 15/16
A.

B.

C.

A.

B.

1. 2.

When an authorized enforcement officer finds that a discharge has taken place or is likely to take place in violation of this chapter, the officer may issue an order to cease and desist such discharge, or practice, or operation likely to cause such discharge and direct that those persons not complying shall:

Comply with the requirement;
Comply with a time schedule for compliance; and/or
Take appropriate remedial or preventive action to prevent the violation from recurring. (Code 1965, § 34-26.)

13.24.260 - Notice to clean.

Whenever an authorized enforcement officer finds any oil, earth, dirt, grass, weeds, dead trees, tin cans, rubbish, refuse, waste or any other material of any kind, in or upon the sidewalk abutting or adjoining any parcel of land, or upon any parcel of land or grounds, which may result in an increase in pollutants entering a city storm sewer system or natural watercourse, or a nonstorm sewer system or natural watercourse, or a nonstorm water discharge to a city storm sewer system or natural watercourse, he or she may give notice to remove such oil, earth, dirt, grass, weeds, dead trees, tin cans, rubbish, refuse, waste or other material, in any manner that he or she may reasonably provide. The recipient of such notice shall undertake the activities as described in the notice.

In the event the owner or operator of a facility fails to conduct the activities as described in the notice, the authorized enforcement officer may cause such required activities as described in the notice, and the cost thereof shall be invoiced to the owner of the property.

If the invoice is not paid within sixty days, a lien shall be placed upon and against the property.

If the lien is not satisfied by the owner of the property within three months after the completion of the required activities by the authorized enforcement officer the property may be sold in a satisfaction thereof in a like manner as other real property is sold under execution.
(Code 1965, § 34-27.)

13.24.270 - Nonexclusivity of remedies.
323
1/19/24, 2:22 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 16/16
Remedies under this chapter are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil or criminal, as provided by federal, state and local law. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. (Code 1965, § 34-28.) (Ord. No. 1415, § 15, 1-12-10)

13.24.280 - Appeal.

In addition to the provisions of Chapter 1.20 of the Banning Municipal Code, any person, firm, corporation or organization required by an enforcement officer to perform monitoring, analyses, reporting, or corrective activities, or for revocation or suspension of a permit or license, and who is aggrieved by the decision of an enforcement officer, may appeal such decision to the director within fifteen days following the effective date of the enforcement officer's decision by writing to the director. Upon receipt of such request, the director shall request a report and recommendation from the enforcement officer and shall set the matter for hearing at the earliest practical date not to exceed sixty days from the date the request is filed. At said hearing, the director may hear additional evidence, and may reject, affirm or modify the enforcement officer's decision. Such decision shall be written and final unless appealed to the city council, which is required pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6 prior to commencing any civil action commencing. (Code 1965, § 34-29.) (Ord. No. 1415, § 16, 1-12-10)
324
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 City of Banning
June 26, 2024
Ray Akhtarshad
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
3737 Main Street, Suite 500
Riverside, Ca 92501
RE: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Request for a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) from the City of Banning
Mr. Akhtarshad,
The City of Banning received an email from you on June 20, 2024 asking for status on the City of Banning’s timeline to submit a ROWD application. Below is a summary of the City’s understanding of the April meeting, next steps, and timelines.

The City of Banning held a meeting with Santa Ana and Colorado River Basin Water Board staff regarding Banning’s jurisdiction within the Santa Ana watershed. During the course of that meeting, it was brought up by Mr. Adam Fischer that there is a portion of the City of Banning that is tributary to Potrero Creek within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. City of Banning’s response to this pointed out that the vast majority of the tributary drainage area is collected in local storm drains and discharged into a private storm drain system within the Sun Lakes Country Club community, specifically to the private golf course within the community. The City of Banning committed to further investigate the City’s MS4 system and outlet points to provide information back to Santa Ana Water Board staff. The following exhibits reflect that research and the amount of the tributary area located within the City of Banning:
• Exhibit 1 – Banning Tributary Area: Identifies Potrero Creek drainage area as supplied by GEI consultants related to the LE/CL TMDL update.
• Exhibit 2 – Banning SD Systems: Identification of SD systems within City of Banning and Sun Lakes Country Club private community.
• Exhibit 3 – Outfall Detail Exhibit: Details of outfalls of Banning storm drains to the private Sun Lakes Country Club, and portion of Highland Springs Ave that drains overland and directly to Potrero Creek.

As shown in the attached exhibits, the portion of the City of Banning’s MS4 that has a connection to Waters of the U.S. is the half width of Highland Springs Ave from a point south of a set of flow-by catch basins in the roadway, and the adjacent parkway to the road. In total, this 325
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 is approximately 5.5 acres of land within the tributary watershed. All other portions of the tributary watershed are either diverted to Smith Creek, to Sun Lakes Country Club’s private storm drain system, or to a MS4 that discharges into the Sun Lakes County Club’s golf course with no direct connection to the Waters of the U.S. Furthermore, the City of Banning does not own or operate an outfall that discharges to Potrero Creek.

Due to the City of Banning’s limited jurisdiction within the Santa Ana River Watershed, and based on discussion with staff from both the Santa Ana and Colorado River Basin Water Boards, the City of Banning requests that the Santa Ana Water Board designate the Colorado River Basin Water Board for regulation of all portions of the city pertaining to the MS4, regardless of the Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdictional boundaries.

The City of Banning received a link from Santa Ana Water Board staff to 40 CFR 122.26, without any guidance or direction from Regional Board staff on the necessary steps to complete the action. During the April 15, 2024 meeting, the City of Banning and Riverside County Flood Control District requested examples of the application from cities who were incorporated into the Riverside County MS4 Permit (Order R8-2010-0033), as amended by Order R8-2013-0024.

Development and submittal of a ROWD is a time intensive and costly action, and the City of Banning wants to understand the outcomes from submitting a ROWD, if necessary. The City of Banning wants to ensure it is directing general funds to necessary community and public safety services, and not towards a regulatory commitment with potentially no outcome.

The City of Banning wishes to work collaboratively with the Santa Ana Water Board; however, the City has not received guidance from Santa Ana Water Board staff on the outcomes of this process. As noted in our January 30, 2024 letter to the Santa Ana Water Board, discussions with Santa Ana Water Board staff on March 18 and April 15, and in the letter, the City of Banning is requesting:

1. Santa Ana Water Board staff remove the City of Banning as a responsible party from the pending Basin Plan Amendment for the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrients TMDL;

2. The Santa Ana Water Board designate the Colorado River Basin Water Board for the regulation of all portions of the City of Banning’s MS4, regardless of the Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdictional boundaries;

3. Guidance from the Santa Ana Water Board on how to submit a ROWD (if necessary), examples of the applications submitted by newly incorporated Riverside County cities under Order R8-2013-0024, and a clear explanation of the purpose and outcomes for the submittal of a ROWD; and

4. A meeting with Santa Ana and Colorado River Basin Water Board staff regarding the aforementioned goals.
326
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 The City of Banning appreciates the time the Santa Ana Water Board staff have taken to review the letters and exhibit we have sent, and the several meetings that have occurred thus far. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please reach directly by email at [email protected] or by phone at 951-922-3182.

Sincerely,
Nathan C Smith, PE
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Banning
Cc: Jayne Joy, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Adam Fischer, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Lauren Briggs, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Kai Dunn, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Board Logan Raub, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Board Jay Mirapour, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Board Richard Boon, Riverside County Flood Control District
Ryan Kearns, Riverside County Flood Control District
Encl: Exhibit 1: Banning Tributary Area
Exhibit 2: Banning Storm Drain Systems
Exhibit 3: Outfall Detail Exhibit
327

PQRSTU V
EXHIBIT 1: BANNING CONTRIBUTING AREA Identified Watershed per GEI Consultants (related to LE/CL Efforts) NON TRIBUTARY AREA TRIBUTARY AREA Diverted to Smith
Creek (Colorado
River Basin) with
I-10 Construction
and UPRR
328
EXHIBIT 2: BANNING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM

RUNOFF FLOW LEGEND TRIBUTARY AREA
Caltrans Channel -
Diversion to Smith
Creek
Outfall Point to
Potrero Creek
Sun Lakes
Country Club
Private HOA
329
Exhibit 3: CITY OF BANNING

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM

SUNLAKES PRIVATE STORM DRAIN

SYSTEM & CONVEYANCE

RUNOFF FLOW LEGEND

TRIBUTARY IMPACTED AREA & SUNLAKES

PRIVATE STORM DRAIN AREA

HIGHLAND SPRINGS STREET
(HALF-WIDTH+PARKWAY)

IMPACTED AREA OF CONVEYANCE

4.5 AC APPROXIMATE HP HIGH POINT CITY OF BANNING CITY OF BEAUMONT Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center
(Overland Drainage to Highland Springs Ave and
Sun Lakes Boulevard)

HP CITY OF BEAUMONT CITY OF BANNING

APPROXIMATE AREA OF
IMPACT IN YELLOW (5.5 A.C.±)

HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE -HALF
WIDTH+PARKWAY C.O.B. CITY OF BANNING CITY OF BEAUMONT

INDEX MAP
NTS
Sun Lakes Country Club
(Private Community) POTRERO CREEK
City MS4 outfall to
Sun Lakes Country
Club Private Storm
Drain and Drainage
System

CITY OF

BEAUMONT

CITY OF

BANNING
City of Beaumont
Storm Drain Outfall to
Potrero Creek (RED)
Surface Flows to Smith Creek
(Colorado River Basin)

EXISTING STORM DRAIN CITY BOUNDARY LINE PORTRERO

CREEK N
City MS4 outfall to
Sun Lakes Country
Club Private Storm
Drain and Drainage
System
Sun Lakes Country
Club Private Storm
Drain and Drainage
System
City MS4 Connection
Point to Sun Lakes
Country Club Private
Storm Drain and
Drainage System
Sun Lakes Country Club
(Private Community)
Sun Lakes Country
Club Private Storm
Drain and Drainage
System
Sun Lakes Country
Club Private Storm
Drain Outfall to
Potrero Creek
City of Banning
Surface Flow
Discharge Point to
Potrero Creek
Sun Lakes Country Club
Private Storm Drain and
Drainage System
Sun Lakes Country
Club Private Storm
Drain Outfall to
Potrero Creek HP
City of Banning
Surface Flow
Discharge Point
to Potrero Creek
330
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 City of Banning
July 29, 2024
Tess Dunham
LECL Task Force Regulatory Advisor
Watershed Protection Authority
11615 Sterling Ave
Riverside, Ca 92503
RE: Response to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Revised Draft for Tentative Resolution R8-2024-XXXX Amending the Basin Plan and Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL
Ms. Dunham,
The City of Banning has reviewed the Revised Draft from July 8 related to the Resolution Amending the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin to Replace the 2004 Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, in the San Jacinto River Watershed, Riverside County California with the 2024 Nutrient TMDLs for Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, in the San Jacinto River Watershed, Riverside County, California, (Basin Plan Amendment), and provides the following comments.

1. Additional language regarding responsible parties

identified responsible parties may change as new and additional data and information becomes available that may either identify new additional categories of responsible discharges or finds that certain identified discharges should no longer be considered responsible” and “As responsible parties change, the Santa Ana Water Board will periodically update the Basin Plan to reflect these changes.” The City of Banning agrees with the language above that allows for periodic updates and changes based on new and changing data.

2. The City of Banning objects to its inclusion as a Responsible Party The Santa Ana Regional Board has been working on revisions to the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake (LECL) TMDL and development of a Basin Plan Amendment dating back to 2015. During that timeframe, the City of Banning was not aware of its potential inclusion until a virtual meeting with the Santa Ana Regional Board Staff on July 17, 2023. The Santa Ana Regional 331
July 29, 2024 Page 2 of 4
Ms. Tess Durham
Watershed Protection Authority
Board did not conduct any outreach to the City of Banning, make any presentation or information available to the City Council, or members of the public. As such, the City of Banning has not had the ability to plan for new and permanent general fund expenses, nor has the City been able to estimate what those new and permanent expenses would be. The City of Banning is designated as a disadvantaged community, and new general fund expenses would come at the expense of other critical city expenses such as public safety and park and recreation.

Given the additional language mentioned in Comment 1, the City of Banning should be removed as a responsible party until acceptable and responsible outreach to the community has been completed by the Santa Ana Regional Board.

3. The Santa Ana Regional Board has not provided a formal response to previous correspondence and comments from the City of Banning regarding inclusion within the LECL TMDL.

The City of Banning provided a comment letter to Santa Ana Regional Board staff on January 30, 2024 highlighting several issues with the updated LECL TMDL. The letter pointed out the lack of outreach and participation in the creation of the updated TMDL and commented on the inaccurate maps prepared by the TMDL Task Force. The LECL Task Force incorrectly assumed in the maps that approximately 300 acres within the City of Banning drained into the San Jacinto sub-watershed. The City also noted the hydrologic and geographic disconnection from the San Jacinto sub-watershed and several impoundments downstream of the City, such as Potrero Basin and Mystic Lake. While a meeting between the City of Banning and the Santa Ana Regional Board did occur for the City to provide additional detail, to date, a formal response to this letter has not been received by the City of Banning.

The City of Banning should be removed as a responsible party until such time that Regional Board staff provide a formal response to the referenced letter with allowance of adequate time for the City of Banning to review and evaluate those responses. A copy of this letter is included as an attachment for reference.

4. The Santa Ana Regional Board has not provided a formal response to previous correspondence and comments from the City of Banning on its request for designation to Colorado River Basin Regional Board.

The City of Banning provided a follow up letter to Santa Ana Regional Board staff on June 26, 2024 detailing the 5.5 acres of the City of Banning’s MS4 that drains into the San Jacinto sub-watershed, which is significantly less that the previous estimate provided by the LECL Task Force. The remaining balance of the City that is part of the San Jacinto subwatershed drains through a private MS4 into a multi-use golf course, or was diverted during the construction of Interstate 10 in the 1960’s to the Whitewater River Watershed.

The letter further requested designation of all portions of the City of Banning within the 332
July 29, 2024 Page 3 of 4
Ms. Tess Durham
Watershed Protection Authority
Santa Ana Watershed to regulation under the Colorado River Basin Regional Board, who is responsible for the remainder of the City of Banning as part of the Whitewater Region Phase I MS4 Permit. To date, Santa Ana Regional Board staff has not provided a response or meeting request on this topic.

The City of Banning should be removed as a responsible party until such time that the Regional Board staff provides a formal response and meets with the City of Banning regarding the City’s objection. A copy of this letter is included as an attachment for reference.

The City of Banning is a disadvantaged community, with an identified tributary area to the San Jacinto sub-watershed of 5.5 acres. Inclusion as a responsible party to the LECL TMDL brings with it additional mandatory expenses, as well as additional reporting, staff time, and resources to meet the TMDL requirements. Unlike other responsible parties who have been part of the LECL TMDL since 2004 and have received extensive outreach and communication with the Santa Ana Regional Board over the years, the City of Banning only documented two instances where it had the opportunity to speak with staff from the Santa Ana Regional Board’s Inland Planning Section.

Requiring the City of Banning to pay into TMLD activities would come at the expense of other General Fund programs, including public safety and parks and recreation. The City of Banning should not be included as a responsible party until such time that the Santa Ana Regional Board provides a response to this and previously submitted letters. The Santa Ana Regional Board must also provide outreach to the City of potential requirements, allowing City staff to assess the required staff time and resources to comply with the TMDL, and present that information to the City Council and the citizens of the City of Banning.

In conclusion, Santa Ana Regional Board staff has not provided acceptable information and outreach to the City of Banning regarding the full impacts of being named as a responsible party. The language referenced in Comment 1 allows for the Santa Ana Regional Board and City of Banning to continue discussion regarding its inclusion as a responsible party after the Basin Plan Amendment has been adopted. The City of Banning should be removed from the Basin Plan Amendment as a responsible party and considered for addition in future updates as is proposed within the Basin Plan Amendment.

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please reach me directly by email at [email protected] or by phone at 951-922-3182. 333
July 29, 2024 Page 4 of 4
Ms. Tess Durham
Watershed Protection Authority
Sincerely,
Nathan C Smith, PE
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Banning
Cc: Jayne Joy, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Terri Reeder, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Lauren Briggs, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Kai Dunn, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Board Logan Raub, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Board Jay Mirapour, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Board Richard Boon, Riverside County Flood Control District
Ryan Kearns, Riverside County Flood Control District
Steve Wolosoff, GEI Consultants
Rick Whetsel, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
Encl: 2024_0130 TMDL Applicability Response Letter
2024_0624 ROWD Response Letter and Designation Request
334
335
336
337
338
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 City of Banning
DRAFT LETTER – SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REVISION
February 14th, 2025
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Public Comment Letter
RE: CITY OF BANNING’S INCLUSION IN THE LAKE ELSINORE/CANYON LAKE BASIN PLAN AND TMDL
Good morning Chair Murray,
I am here to address the Board today with continued concerns related to the City of Banning’s inclusion in the proposed Basin Plan Amendment to revise the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL. I last spoke to you and the Board in September about these concerns, including the lack of response from Regional Board staff regarding the correspondence sent about our inclusion as a responsible party in the Basin Plan Amendment and our requests for full designation under Region 7, the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Board. Since that time, there has been limited outreach from staff to resolve some items, but concerns remain.

For the sake of background, the City of Banning is a community of approximately 23 square miles situated in the San Gorgonio Pass along Interstate 10 between Riverside and Palm Springs. Of our total City Limit, there is 5.5 acres of surface flow on half width street improvements that have a direct discharge to the San Jacinto River sub-watershed regulated by this Regional Board. The balance of the tributary area was either redirected to Region 7 with the constuction on Interstate 10 in the 1950’s, or into a private MS4 of a gated 55+ Golf Course community.

First, the positive. In working with Region 8 staff, the City has submitted a request for full designation to Region 7 for the 5.5-acre portion in the City that is tributary to the San Jacinto River sub-watershed. As this matter continues to move through the process, the City is optimistic given conversation with both Boards that this action will be completed.

However, the City still has significant concerns over its inclusion as a responsible party in the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL. As mentioned previously, the City of Banning is a disadvantaged community. According to information available on the SCAG Regional Data Platform, the City of Banning is comprised of 11 census tracts, 3 of which have predominant household income less than $15,000 annually, and the remaining are all under $75,000. For 339
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 comparison, the entirety of the SCAG region has an average household income of $93,200, and Orange County is over $113,000. Every census tract in the City falls below the SCAG average.

The City continues to be concerned with the process by which the City of Banning was included in the TMDL. After this board directed Regional Board staff to respond formally to our previous requests, the City did receive a letter on October 24, 2024. The response included statements that the City must remain a responsible matter, to which we continue to object, and plainly false statements about when Regional Board staff was aware that the City of Banning fell within the jurisdiction limits.

In the letter, signed by the Executive Director, there is a statement that the Task Force was made aware of the City’s inclusion due to a mapping update that occurred in 2023. However, Task Force documents from 2016 and 2017 both show the City of Banning within the watershed, and in fact include a base load allocation for the City of Banning in various tables.

These items pre-dated any communication to the City by 6 and 7 years. Again, for emphasis, the Task Force had assigned a base load allocation to the City of Banning 6 years prior to notifying the City that we were added as a responsible party.

Many of the City’s concerns could have been addressed if we had been notified at that time.

Our concerns about the incorrect mapping that assumes an area 55 times greater than our permitted MS4 area, and the subsequent base load allocations based on that incorrect number could have been corrected. Rather, the response we received was essentially that ‘its too late, you just have to be a member’ and ‘it can be corrected in the future.’ The City faces significant costs based on this incorrect assessment in the technical studies, flying in the face of Environmental Justice practices and adopted state policy.

Concern about precedent setting is unfounded. The TMDL in effect today, adopted in 2004, does not include the City of Banning as a responsible party. A decision was made at that time to exempt the City. Records of that decision were not available, but there is no record that I have come across that showed any participation by the City at that time, meaning that the decision to exempt the City was a Regional Board decision. Exempting the City from THIS basin plan amendment once again perpetuates the existing actions adopted by this body, maintaining current practices.

Finally, there was concern expressed that it was ‘unsolicitous’ for staff to evaluate individual requests and actions to exempt the City of Banning. The City finds this response to be nonsensical. When considering the incorrect mapping, unwillingness to correct the mapping, the inaccuracies in the technical studies as they relate to the impacts to the City of Banning, and the years it took the Task Force from the initial inclusion of the City in the Technical Studies to actually notifying City Staff, it is unfathomable that the Board staff would continue with our City’s inclusion in the Basin Plan Amendment. The process related to the City of Banning failed, plain and simple.
340
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 The City of Banning recognizes the Board’s role and mission in protecting water quality within the Santa Ana River Basin. The City of Banning also requests that the Board recognize the challenges that municipalities face in providing necessary services for their citizens, planning for those citizens, and informing the citizens of regulatory updates. The City of Banning was denied that option to adequately plan and inform due to the delay in notifying the City of its inclusion in the Basin Plan Amendment and the TMDL. The City is also unaware of the outreach activities, if any, that the Regional Board performed in the City, as required by the California Water Code and Assembly Bill 2108 when the Regional Board amends or adopts new planning, policy, or permitting processes.

In light of these facts, the City makes the following request of the Board, as you consider a resolution to adopt the Basin Plan Amendment and TMDL;

1. Remove the City of Banning as a responsible party with this Amendment. The Basin Plan can be amended in the future as other sources are deemed to contribute to pollutants in the Basin;

2. Direct staff to complete the de-minimus criteria within the timeframe noted in the proposed Basin Plan Amendment, and commit to a future basin plan amendment that would be informed by the de-minimus study;

3. Direct staff to remain actively engaged with the City of Banning as the de-minimums criteria is developed;

4. Direct staff to re-evaluate the City of Banning’s stormwater quality after the de-minimus criteria is adopted by this Board. At that stage, and if the City of Banning does have a negative impact to stormwater quality, to work with the City for future inclusion in the TMDL.

In the interim, the City will continue to do its part to collect and assess our stormwater outfall to Potrero Creek. The City of Banning is actively working with the Riverside County Flood Control District on establishing a water quality monitoring and reporting program to evaluate the runoff coming from the half-width of Highland Springs Avenue. The City will return to this Board and continue to work with staff as the items above move through the process.

Thank you for your time.
341
Chapter 4: Source Assessment
Sources of nutrients to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore are characterized in this section. These lakes receive nutrients via three external delivery mechanisms; watershed runoff, supplemental water deliveries, and internal sources within the lakes. This section describes each of these source categories as follows:
 Watershed Runoff (Section 4.1) – Nutrients washed off from land areas in the watersheds to each lake segment; these land areas represent unique combinations of land use, jurisdiction, and subwatershed characteristics.
 Supplemental Water (Section 4.2) – Nutrients contained within supplemental water inputs to each lake; most notable being the addition of reclaimed water to Lake Elsinore by EVMWD.  Internal Sources (Section 4.3) – Internal sources of nutrients within each lake. Mechanisms that influence the significance of these sources include physical (resuspension by wind or propeller driven turbulence or bioturbation), biological (diagenesis of externally loaded organic matter or decaying phytoplankton within the lake bottom), and chemical (diffusive flux from bottom sediments to water column). Deposition of nutrients from atmosphere directly on the surfaces of Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore is also described in this section.

4.1 Watershed Runoff
Flow gauges are operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that continuously record discharge rates at the two inputs to Canyon Lake (Salt Creek and San Jacinto River) and from San Jacinto River inflows (mostly from Canyon Lake overflow1) to Lake Elsinore. This data characterizes the annual volumes of runoff that reached each lake segment over the period of record. Summary statistics for each of these gauges is presented in Table 4-1.

Continuous flow data from these USGS gauges for the period of 2001 through 2016 was used to calibrate a watershed runoff model for the drainage areas to the lake segments (described in Section

4.1.3 below). Figure 4-1 shows runoff inflows to Canyon Lake from the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek

1 USGS Gauge 11070500, San Jacinto River near Lake Elsinore, is approximately 2 miles downstream of the Canyon Lake spillway and therefore includes for runoff from a small subarea (~7,000 acres) between the two lakes in addition to Canyon Lake overflows. Thus, in years when no Canyon Lake overflows occurred, there is still runoff recorded at this gauge from the San Jacinto River into Lake Elsinore
Table 4-1. Summary Data for USGS Flow Gauges at Inflows to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore Station Upstream Drainage
Area (acres)
Period of
Record
Average Annual
Runoff (AFY)
Historical Peak
Discharge (cfs)
San Jacinto River at Goetz
Road (11070365) 358,400 2000 - 2016 5,900 3,470
Salt Creek at Murrieta
Road (11070465) 74,200 1983 – 1984; 2000 - 2016 5,900 2,550 San Jacinto River at Goetz
Road (11070500) 462,700 1916 - 2016 11,400 16,000
342
and to Lake Elsinore from San Jacinto River. Also shown in Figure 4-1 is an estimate of runoff volume retained within Canyon Lake during each wet season. Volume retention was estimated as the difference between the summed annual volume between USGS gauges upstream and downstream of Canyon Lake for years when Canyon Lake elevation data exceeded its spill water elevation of 1381.76 ft (2003-05, 2008, and 2010-11), indicating that overflows occurred. In dry years when the lake did not reach its spill elevation, outflow was assumed to be zero (2002, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2012-14) equating to complete volume retention.

4.1.1 Model Selection
The most significant external source of nutrients to the lakes is from rainfall driven runoff over watershed lands. To quantify the existing load of nutrients from watershed areas to the lakes, it is important to estimate the rainfall response for runoff volume (hydrology) and associated nutrient concentration (water quality). US Geological Survey (USGS) gauge stations and Task Force watershed monitoring sites provide sound, representative measurements of nutrient loads, or mass emissions, delivered to Canyon Lake and in overflows to Lake Elsinore. Given a robust set of mass emission data at key inflows to the lake segments, a model is not needed for the purpose of estimation of downstream loads in watershed runoff for current conditions. Instead, downstream mass emission data allow for reasonable parameter adjustments to fit a model of runoff volume and quality to measured data.

This source assessment does require the development of a watershed model for other important functions. The primary objective for the watershed model that was developed to support the TMDL revision is to evaluate the origin of the nutrient loads across the large upstream drainage areas. The relative contribution to downstream loads from sources is used in setting allocations and determining load reductions needed from individual sources to meet those allocations. Also, the watershed model Figure 4-1
Annual Runoff Volume into Canyon Lake and Overflow to Lake Elsinore 343
will be useful in implementation as it allows for detailed accounting of jurisdictional loadings to each lake segment.

There are different options for modeling watershed runoff volume and quality of varying complexity, which commonly determines the required levels of expertise needed for development, calibration, and management scenario evaluation. The Loading Simulation Program in C+ (LSPC) that was used for the 2004 TMDL and again in the 2010 watershed model update represents a more complex watershed model. This model involves a deterministic simulation of rainfall and runoff including complex soil hydrology processes that govern runoff generated from pervious land areas. For water quality, nutrients are simulated by buildup or accumulation of nutrients during dry periods and washoff during rain events. Continuous simulation at the daily time-step allows for variable buildup periods between events and thus variable accumulation of pollutant available for washoff. Also, the portion of accumulated nutrients that washes off during a rainfall event to downstream waters is a function of runoff depth.

For the source assessment for Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore watersheds, the existing LSPC tool or a potential new complex dynamic rainfall-runoff and buildup / washoff water quality model was not updated / developed for the following reasons:
 Downstream lake segments are characterized as having limited flushing and significant internal loading of bioavailable nutrients, therefore variability between events does not significantly impact the pool of bioavailable nutrients for algae. Eutrophication occurs at seasonal timescales in Canyon Lake and it is the total wet season retained nutrient load that controls the magnitude and duration of early spring algae blooms (see Linkage Analysis Section 5.X). For Lake Elsinore, bioavailable nutrients are predominantly from internal sources (see Section 4.3.1 below) and lake water quality is frequently controlled by food web dynamics with multi-decadal trends (see Linkage Analysis Section 5.X), thus variability in nutrient loads between individual storm events exerts negligible differences.
 Review of watershed monitoring data show nutrient concentrations are not related to interevent period (number of dry days prior to an event) nor runoff volume. In fact, dynamic calibration plots presented in the TMDL and watershed model update show simulation results that have comparable central tendencies and ranges to measured data, but significant error when comparing discrete events. Thus, other processes influence watershed nutrient loads that may not be characterized by buildup / washoff dynamics.

A static model of long-term average annual runoff volume and nutrient loads, EPA’s Pollutant Loading Estimator tool (PLOAD2), was selected to support this TMDL revision. PLOAD is a component of EPA’s TMDL development framework, Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Non-Point Sources (BASINS).3For this TMDL revision, PLOAD was developed outside of the BASINS environmental in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to allow for greater flexibility and transferability to potential end users.

The use of a static model with empirically defined parameters is scientifically defensible for this watershed because of the limited flushing in the receiving waters, long-term timescales over which eutrophication occurs, apparent complexity of watershed runoff and nutrient loading that may be

2https://nctc.fws.gov/courses/references/tutorials/geospatial/CSP7306/Readings/2002_05_10_BASINS_b3docs_PLOAD_v3.pdf 3https://www.epa.gov/exposure-assessment-models/basins
344
infeasible to represent in any EPA approved, dynamic, deterministic modeling tools, and robustness of mass emission data available for all major inflow to each lake segment.

4.1.2 Establishment of Model Subareas
The first step in the watershed runoff nutrient source analysis is to define the spatial discretization for simulation of rainfall driven runoff and associated washoff of nutrients. The selected modeling approach, comparable to PLOAD, is a spatially lumped parameter model. This means that commonality of key parameters, not geography, is used to define distinct subareas. Watershed runoff simulations were developed for land areas with common land use, jurisdiction, and subwatershed zone, referred to as model subareas. Figure 4-2 shows the geographic distribution of these three defining attributes for the entire watershed to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore (a plot size version of this figure is attached in electronic form).

Hydrology and water quality modeling is performed separately for each model subarea. Figure 4-3 shows the interconnectivity of model subareas and conveyance within receiving waters. Respectively, the green and red boxes along the outer perimeter represent agricultural and urban jurisdictional groups within each subwatershed zone. Within each of these watershed elements of this schematic, one Figure 4-2
Map of subwatershed zones, jurisdictions, and land use for development of watershed model subareas 345
or more land uses may exist. In total, there are over 500 distinct model subareas developed to support source assessment and development of allocations. These model subareas are not geographically contiguous, but rather they are spatially lumped portions of drainage area with common parameter sets. For example, a single model subarea exists to represent all commercial/industrial land area within the City of Moreno Valley within subwatershed zone 5. Appendix A provides a tabular summary of each model subareas and reports important characteristics used for parameterizing the water runoff model.

Figure 4-3
Schematic of watershed runoff model
346
The schematic also shows how runoff is routed from model subareas to receiving waters. Subwatershed zone delineations were developed based on this routing, as indicated in each of the blue receiving water elements. Some model subareas drain directly to one of the three TMDL lake segments; Canyon Lake Main Lake and East Bay, and Lake Elsinore. Other model subareas are routed through the San Jacinto River, Perris Valley Channel, or Salt Creek prior to reaching a TMDL lake segment. The position of Mystic Lake as an important impoundment to be accounted in the source assessment is also shown in the schematic. Model subareas draining to Mystic Lake are treated differently as discussed in Section 4.1.3.4 below.

For this TMDL revision, several subwatershed boundary revisions were incorporated to update the boundaries used in the 2004 TMDL and TMDL model update in 2010 (Figure 4-4). Hatched areas in Figure 4-4 show where boundaries are revised and labels indicate the change from the 2004 TMDL to this TMDL revision. The revision are summarized below:
 Mystic Lake tributary area correction – The drainage area to Mystic Lake, subwatershed zones 7, 8, and 9 in the 2004 TMDL, was re-evaluated by WRCAC to support the TMDL revision. An elevation map of the region combined with knowledge of surface features was used to develop a new, technically correct delineation of the area tributary to Mystic Lake4. Revisions are shown in green (drainage area taken out of Zone 7) or purple (drainage area put into Zone 7) hatching in Figure 4-4. The revisions included removal of a large drainage area near the bend of the San Jacinto River that is not tributary to Mystic Lake; instead this area contributes runoff to Canyon Lake in most hydrologic years. Also, modification to the boundary near North Warren Rd in the vicinity of the Colorado River aqueduct. In total, the changes amount to a net reduction of ~5,000 drainage acres to subwatershed zone 7, and a net increase in the same amount for subwatersheds downstream of Mystic Lake.
 Local Canyon Lake tributary area to East Bay / Main Lake – Subwatershed zones 2 and 3 in the 2004 TMDL and 2010 watershed model update represent the downstream portions of San Jacinto River and Salt Creek, respectively. However, downstream of the USGS gauges / watershed monitoring stations, the boundary between these subwatershed zones does not properly delineate areas draining directly to the Main Lake of Canyon Lake (from the San Jacinto River) versus draining directly to the East Bay of Canyon Lake (from Salt Creek). The blue hatched area in Figure 4-4 indicate the areas that were revised to properly reflect drainage to East Bay.

4 CDM Smith. Technical Memorandum; Update to San Jacinto Watershed Zone Delineation, October 31, 2013. 347

4.1.3 Hydrology
A static model was developed within a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to simulate the volume of average annual runoff in model subareas as a result of rainfall, presented in the equation below:

𝑄𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝑅𝐶
where,
Qannual = annual flow volume
Precipannual = average annual rainfall depth
RC = runoff coefficient
This hydrologic method is used in an EPA approved public domain watershed model PLOAD. The following sections describe the methods used to develop the hydrologic model for the watersheds that drain to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore.

4.1.3.1 Precipitation
Precipitation input data for the model was extracted from RCFC&WCD rainfall stations distributed throughout the watershed (Figure 4-5). Table 4-2 presents long-term average annual rainfall from these Figure 4-4
Map of revisions to subwatershed zonal boundaries
348
stations, which are assigned to represent specific subwatershed zones. For subareas above Mystic Lake (i.e., subwatershed zones 7-9), rainfall from the San Jacinto Station 186 was used to represent drainage areas with elevations below 3000 feet and rainfall from the Idyllwild Station 90 was used to represent areas with elevation greater than 3000 feet. Table 4-2 provides average annual rainfall for different periods representing the full period of record at each station for comparison with the selected subsets for model calibration and allocation setting. The period used for model calibration (2000-2015) coincides with the period of record for USGS flow gauges at the two primary inflows to Canyon Lake; San Jacinto River at Goetz Road (USGS Station 11070365) and Salt Creek at Murrieta Road (USGS Station 11070465).

The allocation setting period of 1948-2015 was selected as the period with continuous rainfall records with no missing data from all of the stations used in the watershed model. The average annual rainfall from this period is very similar to the average for the full period of record for each station.

Figure 4-5
Map of rainfall stations used for long-term rainfall depth inputs to the watershed model 349

4.1.3.2 Runoff Coefficient
A runoff coefficient (RC) is a factor to express the ratio of rainfall to surface runoff. Simple hydrologic modeling methods, such as the Rational Method and derivations thereof, estimate the runoff coefficient as a function of watershed imperviousness. The connectivity of impervious land cover to MS4 inlets is an important consideration, especially in newer developments that employ low-impact development (LID) site designs that strive to disconnect impervious areas to prevent runoff reaching surface waters.

Similarly, lower density residential land use is characterized by unpaved or partially paved walkways and driveways that have less directly connected impervious area (DCIA). Given this, for the Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore watersheds, an exponential function was selected to estimate runoff coefficients that best relates increased connectivity with increased imperviousness (Bochis-Micu and Pitt, 20055). Two factors are included in the exponential function, including; 1) a watershed-wide estimate of runoff / rainfall ratio for pervious lands (a), and 2) exponent factor (b) for imperviousness (IMP).

𝑅𝐶 = 𝑎 ∗ 𝑒
(𝑏∗𝐼𝑀𝑃)
An initial parameter estimate of a = 0.05 was selected for model development based on typically measured runoff ratios for varying levels of imperviousness in 47 hydrology studies from across the nation (Schueler, 19876). Pervious area runoff is variable and influenced by factors such as slope, soil health, and vegetative cover fraction, which can vary between watersheds. Thus, this value was allowed to be adjusted within +/- 50 percent (from 0.0 to 0.1) during model calibration. Bochis-Mitu and Pitt, (2005)4suggest that the coefficient in the exponent be set to meet an assumption of 90 percent runoff ratio for a completely impervious watershed. Thus, for the exponent coefficient b, a value of 2.3 was set

5 Bochis-Micu, Celina, and Robert Pitt. 2005. Impervious Surfaces in Urban Watersheds, Proceedings of the 78thAnnual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference in Washington, D.C., Oct. 29 – Nov. 2, 2005 6 Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban Best Management Practices. MWCOG. Washington, D.C.

Table 4-2. Rainfall Station Summary Statistics and Linkage to Model Subwatersheds Station Period of
Record
Period of
Record Average
Rainfall (in/yr)
1948-2015
Average1
Rainfall (in/yr)
2000-2015
Average2
Rainfall (in/yr)
Subwatershed
Zone
San Jacinto
Sta 186 1903 – Present 12.7 12.0 10.0 7,8,9 (below 3000') Elsinore NWS
Sta 67 1896 - Present 12.1 11.4 10.0 1
Perris CDF Sta
152 1910 – Present 10.5 10.3 8.9 2,5,6
Winchester
Sta 248 1940 - Present 10.9 10.8 9.4 3,4
Idyllwild NWS
Sta 90 1929 – Present 25.8 25.7 22.8 7,8,9 (above 3000') 1) Average annual rainfall used to estimate runoff volume for determining existing and allowable loads for TMDL 2) Average annual rainfall used to fit watershed runoff model to measured data at USGS gauging stations 350
as default when a = 0.05. These two factors are the primary variables used for fit results of the PLOAD model for the TMDL revision to approximate measured annual runoff volumes.

The Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)7 maintains a national map of impervious surfaces with a spatial resolution of 30 meters, most recently updated in 20118(Homer et al., 2015).

Imperviousness within the watersheds to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore was extracted from this national map and used for estimating runoff coefficients from model subareas with the above equation (Figure 4-6).

4.1.3.3 Downstream Retention in Unlined Channels
Not all rainfall that runs off into a surface water reaches Canyon Lake because of recharge that occurs in bottom sediments of unlined channel bottoms. Figure 4-7 shows the unlined channel bottom segments throughout the watershed where downstream retention and groundwater recharge of runoff is known

7 http://www.mrlc.gov/
8 Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D., and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354 Figure 4-6
Imperviousness in the Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore Watersheds 351
to occur. The major unlined channel segments that infiltrate upstream runoff include Salt Creek, San Jacinto River, and Perris Valley Channel.

To estimate the annual loss of runoff within these channel bottoms, a separate hydrologic data analysis was completed. The potential daily infiltration volume into the channel bottom segments was approximated from typical percolation rates for soils and the extent of the unlined channel bottom (Table 4-3). Daily runoff data from the period of record at the inflows to Canyon Lake (2000 – 2016) was evaluated to estimate the number of days when channel bottoms may have actively infiltrated upstream runoff. This was accomplished by assuming infiltration within unlined channel bottoms only occurred on days when the nearest downstream gauged flow exceeded a threshold indicative of wet weather conditions. The final column of Table 4-3 presents the estimated average annual yield of infiltrated runoff in each channel bottom segment
This estimated annual recharge volume (AFY) in Table 4-2 for each unlined channel bottom segment is converted into a depth of runoff from the upstream drainage areas within that subwatershed zone: (a) subwatershed zone 5 to Perris Valley Channel; (b) subwatershed zone 6 to San Jacinto River; and (c) subwatershed zone 4 to Salt Creek. The estimated depth of watershed runoff retained in channel bottoms (Dret) is added into the hydrologic model for subareas in these zones as follows:

Figure 4-7
Unlined Channel Bottom Segments in the Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore Watersheds 352
𝑄𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝑅𝐶) − 𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

4.1.3.4 Influence of Mystic Lake
Watershed runoff in the upper San Jacinto River is captured in Hemet Lake within the National Forest and ultimately Mystic Lake, a large shallow depression in the San Jacinto valley (Figure 4-8). Mystic Lake has a storage capacity of approximately 17,000 AF, which is sufficient to retain all runoff from the upper watershed in most years. In addition, runoff is captured for water supply at Lake Hemet and groundwater recharge by EMWD in a series of spreading grounds (Figure 4-8). In years when Mystic Lake’s storage volume is filled, large volumes of runoff may be delivered to Canyon Lake from the upper watershed, i.e. subwatershed zones 7-9. Mystic Lake overflows are known to have occurred in the 1993- 94, 1995-96, and 1998-99 water years9, but not in subsequent wet years when flow gauge data showed no overflows occurred (notable being the 2004-2005 season). Given this, there is no downstream flow data for inflows to Canyon Lake during any overflow year (USGS gauge installed in 2000 after most recent known overflow in 1998). Thus, runoff from model subareas in subwatershed zones 7-9 is assumed to be entirely retained in Mystic Lake for the calibration of runoff for the 2000-2016 period.

Runoff and associated nutrient loads that may potentially occur during future Mystic Lake overflows are estimated as described in this section.

Rainfall stations in the region have actively collected data for 112 years at RCFC&WCD Station 186 San Jacinto and 86 years at RCFC&WCD Station 90 Idyllwild (see Table 4-2 above). These two rainfall stations are used to estimate runoff in model subareas within subwatershed zones 7, 8, and 9 with San Jacinto rainfall used for subareas below 3000’ elevation and Idyllwild rainfall used for subareas above 3000’ elevation. The watershed model was used to conduct a time series analysis for years with concurrent rainfall data at both of these stations (1929 – 2016). The pervious area runoff coefficient was adjusted to account for significant attenuation in these subwatershed zones with retention in Lake Hemet and EMWD groundwater recharge basins that capture surface runoff from diversions in the upper San Jacinto River. The final parameters of a=0.034 and b=2.3 were determined to meet the conditions that would generate overflows in water years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1998-99, and not in water year 2004-05 based on a reservoir water budget analysis described below. Modeled estimates of annual runoff over this period from San Jacinto River into Mystic Lake are plotted in Figure 4-9.

9 http://www.sawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2015-8-11-Presentations-3.pdf Table 4-3. Unlined Channel Bottom Segments and Estimated Average Annual Runoff Retained from Upstream Drainage Areas
Channel
Bottom
Area
(acres)
Recharge
Rate
(ft/day)
Downstream
Flow Threshold
(cfs)1
Number of
Recharge Days
(2000-2015)
Estimated
Annual Recharge
(AFY)
San Jacinto River 111 0.1 20 257 150
Perris Valley Channel 222 0.1 20 257 300
Salt Creek 600 0.3 10 224 2800
1) Downstream flow gauges for San Jacinto River and Perris Valley Channel is San Jacinto River at Goetz Rd (Sta 11070365) and Salt Creek at Murrieta Rd (Station 11070465) for Salt Creek. The period of record for these gauges is 2000-2016. 353
A reservoir water budget analysis after Gilbert (1970)10 was developed to approximate the volume of overflow in a given wet season (Oi) from Mystic Lake to Canyon Lake by estimating key water budget components of runoff inflow (R), available storage capacity (S), and dry season evaporative losses (E), as follows:

𝑂𝑖 = 𝑅𝑖 − (𝑆𝑀𝐴𝑋 − 𝑆𝑖)

10 Gilbert, C. R., 1970. Water loss studies of Lake Corpus Christi, Nueces River Basin, Texas 1949-1965: Texas Water Development Board Report 104.

Figure 4-8
Drainage area upstream of Mystic Lake
354
𝑆𝑖 = 𝑅𝑖−1 + 𝑆𝑖−1 − 𝐸𝑖−1 − 𝑂𝑖−1
Subsidence of land within the Mystic Lake basin bottom is continually adding an estimated 200 AF of storage capacity each year, as documented with review of historical bathymetric maps (Morton, 2015) 11 Looking forward, an estimated 5,000 additional AF of storage capacity may exist in 2040. To account for this future rise in storage capacity, the water budget analysis was developed with an assumed maximum storage capacity (SMAX) of 22,000 AF, greater than the current estimate of 17,000 AF.

The results predict that overflows from Mystic Lake to Canyon Lake may have occurred in 18 of 86 years since 1929, with the most recent during the 1997-98 wet season (see Appendix B for tabular outputs).

More important than the frequency of overflows, is the volume of runoff that reaches Canyon Lake from the upper watershed. The reservoir routing analysis predicted that an average of ~4,500 AFY in overflow years and a range of less than 500 AFY to over 9,000 AFY (Figure 4-10).

The water budget analysis showed that storage (Si-1) was close to maximum capacity (SMAX) in wet seasons leading up to each overflow year. Thus, overflow volume is largely the amount of runoff in excess of evaporative losses occurring during the dry season that occurs during consecutive years of above average rainfall. Comparing the estimated overflow of ~900 AFY to the total runoff volume from the upper watershed for the 86-year simulation period of ~9,000 AFY suggests that 10 percent of long term runoff from subwatersheds 7-9 may reach Canyon Lake. Thus, a factor of 0.10 is applied in the

11 http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_78686.htm
Figure 4-9
Modeled runoff inflow to Mystic Lake
355
model to estimate long term average runoff and associated pollutant loads from the upper watershed to the Main Lake of Canyon Lake

4.1.3.5 Hydrologic Model Results
Comparisons were made between measured and modeled average annual runoff delivered to Canyon Lake from model subareas upstream of the USGS gauges on San Jacinto River at Goetz Road and Salt Creek at Murrieta Road. To make this comparison it was necessary to do an additional delineation for subwatershed zones 2 and 3 downstream of these gauges, in order to discount modeled runoff from portions of these subwatersheds that are downstream of the San Jacinto River at Goetz Road and Salt Creek at Murrieta Road USGS gauge stations. The ungauged portions comprise ~25,000 acres and amount to ~16 percent of the total drainage area to Canyon Lake below Mystic Lake. These ungauged areas include land areas that drain directly to the shoreline of Canyon Lake and a large tributary referred to as Meadow Brook (Figure 4-11).

The factors used to estimate runoff coefficients as a function of subarea imperviousness were adjusted (a=0.065, b=2.3) to fit modeled long-term average annual runoff volume to averages from the USGS gauges (Figure 4-12). Fitting a static condition of annual average runoff volume allows for a very close fit of model estimates to measured data by attenuating the natural dynamic variability.

Figure 4-10
Modeled overflow volume from Mystic Lake to Canyon Lake (years not shown did not result in a spill)
356
Figure 4-11
Drainage areas downstream of USGS gauge stations not included in comparison of modeled to measured runoff volume
357
Average annual runoff volume was estimated using long-term average rainfall based on the entire period of concurrent rainfall data at RCFC&WCD stations of 1948-2015 (shown in Table 4-2 above).

Results shown in Table 4-4 represent the estimated average annual volume of runoff delivered to Canyon Lake, Main Lake and East Bay, and Lake Elsinore from all watershed lands. These results account for losses in unlined channel bottom segments and include the long term average of runoff overflow volume (computed including years with zero values) from drainage areas upstream of Mystic Lake. The runoff inflow volume shown for Lake Elsinore is for the local drainage and does not include overflows from Canyon Lake.

4.1.4 Water Quality
The preceding section describes a static model for estimating volume of watershed runoff generated from different model subareas that is delivered to each lake segment. Watershed runoff contains nutrients, total phosphorus and total nitrogen, that are conveyed through drainage features to the downstream lake segments. In wet years, the greatest source of nutrients to the lakes segments comes from the watershed with runoff. The following sections describe types of nutrient sources in the model Table 4-4. Estimated Long-Term (1948-2015) Average Runoff Volume Delivered to Lake Segments from All Watershed Lands
Average Annual Runoff
Inflows to Lakes (AFY)
San Jacinto River
(to Main Lake of
Canyon Lake)
Salt Creek (to
East Bay of
Canyon Lake)
Local Lake
Elsinore Total
Modeled - Current Land use 11,310 3,585 3,002 17,897
Figure 4-12
Comparison of modeled and measured average (2000-2015) annual runoff volume for primary inflows to Canyon Lake
358
subareas, the concentration of nutrients washed off from different land use types, and the total load of nutrients delivered to the lake segments as external loads in watershed runoff.

4.1.4.1 Sources of Nutrients in Watershed Runoff
Specific sources of nutrients that may be available for washoff with runoff are listed below:
 Trash
 Fertilizers
 Green waste
 Pet waste
 Septic system failure
 Detergents
 Construction sites
 Erosion of exposed soils
The source assessment estimates total nitrogen and total phosphorus washoff from model subareas for generalized land use categories in drainage areas upstream of Canyon Lake (Main Lake and East Bay) and Lake Elsinore (local drainage downstream of Canyon Lake) (Table 4-5). Detailed land use distributions by subwatershed zone and jurisdiction are provided in Appendix A.

4.1.4.2 Nutrient Loading to Lake Segments
The existing loads to Canyon Lake and from Canyon Lake to Lake Elsinore can be approximated from historical flow and water quality data from the two inputs to Canyon Lake (Salt Creek and San Jacinto River) and from San Jacinto River inflows to Lake Elsinore. The gauges are downstream of the majority of Table 4-5. Distribution of Land Use (Acres) in Areas that Drain to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore Land Use San Jacinto River
(to Main Lake)1
Salt Creek
(to East Bay)
Local Lake
Elsinore Total
Commercial / Industrial 18582 5157 1854 25594
Dairy 812 0 4 816
Forested 262484 41487 17472 321444
Irrigated Cropland 16446 3800 0 20246
Non-Irrigated Cropland 8085 5278 22 13386
Open Space 9240 4287 544 14071
Orchards / Vineyards 3953 322 56 4330
Other Livestock 2179 1120 30 3329
Pasture / Hay 2473 646 53 3173
Roadway 2014 785 240 3039
Water 3717 427 3183 7327
Residential – Septic 2 2601 1008 254 3863
Residential – Sewer 41623 17450 6652 65726
Total 374210 81768 30365 486342
1) Acres shown include drainage areas upstream of Mystic Lake in subwatersheds 7-9 2) Residential land use on septic systems was approximated by intersecting GIS layers of Riverside County parcels containing a septic tank with 2014 land use areas mapped as low-density residential 359
drainage area to the lake segments, although adjustments are made in the modeling approach to account for ungauged drainage areas, as described in the following section 4.1.4.3. The concentration of nutrients for inflows to and outflows from Canyon Lake have been monitored during 25 storm events between 2008 and 2016 by the Task Force. Data are sufficiently robust from these watershed monitoring activities to be considered representative of long term averages and to characterize most of the expected variability associated with seasonality and magnitude of storm events. Event based summary data is presented in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6. Average Storm Event Nutrient Concentrations from Watershed Monitoring Sites Event Date
San Jacinto River at
Goetz Rd
Salt Creek at Murrieta
Rd
Canyon Lake
Overflow
Cranston Guard
Station
TP
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
1 1/11/2001 0.62 7.03 0.32 4.83
2 1/26/2001 0.21 10.60 0.20 5.80
3 2/13/2001 0.49 5.50 0.28 3.24
4 2/25/2001 0.41 4.98 0.44 3.40 0.17 2.70
5 2/12/2003 0.64 2.56 0.61 2.62 0.13 0.60
6 2/25/2003 1.94 2.93 0.82 2.83 1.00 1.69 0.92 1.41
7 10/27/2004 1.50 3.01 0.96 2.07 0.41 2.00 4.13 3.80
8 1/12/2005 1.47 2.95 1.35 2.05 0.16 0.98
9 3/23/2005 0.78 1.32 0.44 2.68 0.11 0.58
10 2/28/2006 0.69 2.82 0.37 2.36
11 4/5/2006 0.32 1.80 0.62 2.49
12 1/5/2008 0.39 1.15
13 1/27/2008 0.58 1.90 1.08 2.70 0.46 1.82 1.22 4.00
13 2/4/2008 0.43 1.03
14 11/26/2008 1.51 3.07 0.77 1.57
15 2/16/2009 0.68 2.08 1.32 3.65 0.45 1.49
16 12/12/2009 0.46 1.94 0.61 2.70
17 1/20/2010 1.12 2.13 0.99 2.33 0.58 1.95 10.13 7.09
18 2/5/2010 1.12 3.81 0.77 2.20 0.80 2.43
19 12/21/2010 0.72 2.01 0.46 1.56
20 2/18/2011 1.87 3.60 0.42 2.81 0.56 1.38
21 2/25/2011 4.19 3.56 0.54 2.11 0.94 2.21
22 3/17/2012 0.94 2.56 0.33 2.12
23 3/26/2012 0.26 1.85 0.23 1.73
24 4/26/2012 0.56 2.58 0.41 2.18
25 2/20/2013 0.73 2.39 0.30 2.11
26 3/8/2013 0.56 2.57 0.33 1.70
27 2/28/2014 0.85 2.16 1.15 3.32
Median of all Samples 0.71 2.58 0.54 2.49 0.51 1.89 0.32 0.92 360
Median event nutrient concentrations (Cmedian) from the two inputs to Canyon Lake (Salt Creek and San Jacinto River) and overflow to Lake Elsinore, when active, are shown in Table 4-6. Use of a flowweighted average was considered but not used because no significant relationship was found between flow rate and nutrient concentration when comparing events. The median values were applied to annual volumes measured at the USGS gauges to estimate loading to the lakes from most of the watershed, as follows:

𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝑄𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝐶𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛
Figures 4-13 and 4-14 show estimated annual nutrient loads based on measurements of daily flow and average of water quality monitoring data. The estimated retention of nutrient loads within Canyon Lake is computed from measured data similarly to volume retention (see Figure 4-1 above). Retained nutrient loads are estimated as the difference between the summed annual loading for stations upstream and downstream of Canyon Lake for years when Canyon Lake elevation data exceeded its spill water elevation of 1381.76 ft (2003-05, 2008, and 2010-11), indicating that overflows occurred. In dry years when the lake did not overflow, all nutrients loads are assumed to be retained.

Figure 4-13
Annual Total Phosphorus Load into Canyon Lake and Overflow to Lake Elsinore 361

4.1.4.3 Nutrient Washoff Model
PLOAD was employed to estimate nutrient washoff to downstream lake segments. This method computes downstream annual nutrient loads (Lannual) as a function of average annual runoff (Qannual) and event mean concentrations (EMCs)12 for spatially lumped subareas with common land use (LU), subwatershed zone (Z), and jurisdiction (J), as follows:

𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = ∑ 𝑄𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙
𝐿𝑈,𝑍,𝐽
∗ 𝐸𝑀𝐶𝐿𝑈
Thus, the estimation of nutrient loads delivered to downstream lake segments is based on hydrologic model results and assumed values for total phosphorus and total nitrogen EMCs in washoff from general land use categories. Table 4-7 presents the land use-based EMCs used to develop the source assessment for the TMDL revision. Table 4-7 also documents the monitoring data from sites in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River watershed that served as the basis for each of these EMCs. These monitoring sites are representative of the general land use categories (Figure 4-15). Generally, urban land use groups were characterized from NPDES monitoring conducted by RCFC&WCD at core monitoring sites13 and agricultural land use groups were characterized by a special study of cropland plot scale nutrient BMP

12 An event mean concentration (EMC) is the average concentration of a water quality parameter over the course of an entire wet weather event. The average of EMCs from multiple sampled events provides a more robust estimate of the central tendency for the upstream drainage area
13 RCFC&WCD (2015). Report of Waste Discharge
Figure 4-14
Annual Total Nitrogen Load into Canyon Lake and Overflow to Lake Elsinore 362
effectiveness conducted by UC Riverside14 through a 319(h) grant. In addition, the National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD)15 contained data from multiple sites from freeways in the vicinity of the SJR watershed that were used to characterize transportation land use in the watershed. Lastly, EMCs for Pasture / Hay / Ranch and Other Livestock land use groups have not been published from studies in the watershed vicinity. Estimated EMCs for pasture land cover for Central Florida was synthesized in H.H.

Harper (1998)16 and is used for this source assessment. These two land use groups compromise approximately 1 percent of the total acreage in the drainage areas to the lakes based on mapping completed in 2014 (see Table 4-5 above), therefore values for these EMCs are relatively insensitive to the estimate of downstream loads.

The RCFC&WCD monitoring site at Canyon Lake at Sierra Park is located downstream of Quail Valley, a low density residential area that was not historically serviced by any centralized sewer system. A large project to bring sewer service to this area is currently underway. Monitoring at the downstream sample site was conducted prior to any sewer construction and therefore may be representative of residential land use with on-site sanitary treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), referred to as septic systems in this report. The nutrient concentration data from this site show similar TP levels to sewered residential but roughly 80 percent greater TN concentration. This difference makes sense given that adsorption of nitrogen in soils is less efficient than phosphorus. A similar water quality response was observed from a smaller sample set collected from Meadow Brook, a tributary to the San Jacinto River just above the

14 University of California at Riverside. Assessment of Best Management Practices to Reduce Nutrient Loads. Final Report for Section 319(h) Grant, Agreement No 05-040-558-1 between the State Water Resources Control Board and Regents of the University of California, 2011.
15 http://www.bmpdatabase.org/nsqd.html
16 Harper, H.H. (1998). Stormwater Chemistry and Water Quality. http://www.erd.org/ERD%20Publications/STORMWATER%20CHEMISTRY%20AND%20WATER%20QUALITY---1999.pdf Table 4-7. Land Use Specific Event Mean Concentrations used for Source Assessment Land Use TP
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L) Site Name Source (number of samples; period of record) Commercial / Industrial 0.54 3.89 Corona Storm Drain (Sta 40)
RCFC&WCD (n=30; 2004 –
2014)
Residential - Sewer 0.48 2.93 Sunnymead Channel (Sta
316)
RCFC&WCD (n=30; 2004 –
2015)
Residential - Septic 0.59 5.30 Canyon Lake at Sierra
Park (Sta 834)
RCFC&WCD (n=21; 2000-
2004)
Roadway 0.31 4.88 Freeway (FW) CACTA006,
011, 012, 013 NSQD (n=14; 1997 - 1999)
Irrigated Cropland 1.04 4.08 Pumpkin Control UC Riverside (n=8; 2008) Non-Irrigated Cropland 1.21 3.25 Wheat Control UC Riverside (n=14; 2007- 2009)
Orchards / Vineyards 1.13 1.71 Citrus Control UC Riverside (n=17; 2007 – 2009)
Open Space / Forested 0.32 0.92 Cranston Guard Station US Forest Service (n=54; 2001 – 2010)
Pasture / Other Livestock 0.48 2.48 Not reported Harper, H.H. 1998 1) No EMCs were applied for dairy land uses based on presumed compliance with CAFO Permit requirement for on-site runoff retention up to 25 year return period storm event.
363
inflow to Canyon Lake Main Lake, with elevated TN concentrations averaging over 10 mg/L (see Attachment B of the CNRP)17.

Both Quail Valley and Meadow Brook are situated over portions of the watershed with shallow (<2 meters) depths to bedrock, thereby posing a greater risk of short-circuiting septic leachfields during wet weather events. A review of regional SSURGO soil survey mapping18 showed that most other residential – septic model subareas (displayed in Figure 4-2 above) in the watersheds to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore also overlay areas with shallow depth to bedrock. Thus, the TMDL revision applied an EMC specifically for model subareas identified as residential – septic to account for nutrients from potentially failing septic systems watershed-wide. This approach differs from the method in the 2004 TMDL source assessment, which involved a separate loading analysis to attempt to quantify nutrient loads in potentially failing septic systems. The previously employed approach required rough assumptions about failure rates and how wet weather conditions mobilize incompletely treated sewage.

17 CDM Smith (2013). Comprehensive Nutrient Reduction Plan for MS4 Permittees in the Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore Nutrient TMDL, http://www.sawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/CNRP-for-Lake-Elsinore-and-Canyon-Lake_Final.pdf 18 http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Figure 4-15
Map of showing water quality monitoring sites in the San Jacinto River watershed and vicinity used to estimate land use based EMCs for TP and TN
364
For each referenced monitoring station, the median of collected wet weather samples was computed and served as the EMC value in the source assessment model. The full range of wet weather TP and TN concentrations are plotted as box/whisker plots in Figure 4-16 for TP and Figure 4-17 for TN. These plots show the median (black line through box), 25th and 75th percentiles (lower and upper bounds of box) and minimum and maximum values (whiskers) for the full dataset.

Figure 4-16
Box/whisker plots of wet weather TP from land use specific EMC sites (data for Other Livestock or Pasture/Hay/Ranch land uses not available) Figure 4-17
Box/whisker plots of wet weather TN from land use specific EMC sites (data for Other Livestock or Pasture/Hay/Ranch land uses not available) 365
Applying these land use specific EMCs to average annual runoff (see Section 4.1.2 above) provides an estimate of nutrient loads for all model subareas. Taking only model subareas from upstream of USGS gauges on San Jacinto River at Goetz Road and Salt Creek at Murrieta Road and simulating average annual rainfall for the period of 2000-2016 allows for comparison of modeled to measured loads (Figure 4-18). Ungauged subareas that are downstream of the monitoring sites and drain directly to the shoreline of Canyon Lake (see Figure 4-11 above) as well as all model subareas upstream of Mystic Lake (no overflows occurred in 2000-2015 period) are excluded from these outputs.

Generally, the model performed well in predicting average annual nutrient loads when compared with estimated loads from measured data at the two downstream monitoring sites. No changes were made to the land use based EMCs that were determined from medians of TN and TP concentration from select monitoring stations with a predominant upstream land use category (see Table 4-7 above). The model did slightly under-predict annual TP loads to the San Jacinto River at Goetz Road. It is possible that another in-stream source is present in this drainage area to account for elevated concentrations (median TP of 0.71 mg/L) at the downstream station.

Results for nutrients loads delivered to the lake segments based on long-term average annual rainfall (1948-2015) and accounting for all model subareas are reported in Table 4-8. The results in Table 4-8 include the overflows from Canyon Lake to Lake Elsinore and overflows from Mystic Lake to the San Jacinto River and ultimately the Main Lake of Canyon Lake.

Figure 4-18
Comparison of modeled and estimated average (2000-2016) annual nutrient loads to monitoring sites for San Jacinto River at Goetz Road and Salt Creek at Murrieta Road 366
Nutrient loading to lake segments from watershed runoff are summarized by subwatershed zone and by general land use category in Figures 4-19 and 4-20, respectively. Results show the greatest loading of nutrients originates in subwatershed zone 5, which comprises the entire drainage area of Perris Valley Channel. Nutrient loads from Zone 4 that are estimated to reach Canyon Lake East Bay are approximately half of washoff from model subareas as a result of significant channel bottom recharge in Salt Creek.

Table 4-8. Model Results for Long-Term Average (1948-2016) Annual Runoff and Nutrient Load Delivered to Lake Segments
Receiving Lake Segment Runoff Inflow
(AFY) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr)
Canyon Lake Main Lake1 10,975 5,007 23,540
Canyon Lake East Bay 3,768 1,516 7,397
Lake Elsinore2 9,530 5,037 19,931
1) Includes estimated Mystic Lake average annual overflow volume (accounting for zero years) and associated nutrient loads from subwatershed 7-9
2) Includes measured overflow volume from Canyon Lake to Lake Elsinore shown in Figure 4-1 and estimated loads based on medians of historical watershed monitoring data shown in Table 4-6 (median TP = 0.51 mg/L; TN = 1.89 mg/L) Figure 4-19
Nutrient loading to lake segments by subwatershed zone
367
Land use categories with the greatest acreage in the watershed were the largest source of nutrient loading to the lake segments. This includes residential – sewered and commercial / industrial categories as well as forest and open space model subareas. Agricultural land uses in the San Jacinto River watershed have declined significantly since the existing TMDLs were developed. Despite having relatively higher EMCs, the lower imperviousness and reduction of total agricultural acreage has reduced the source contribution from agricultural land use categories to the lake segments relative to the 2004 TMDL.

4.2 Supplemental Water
An additional source of volume and nutrient load exists for Lake Elsinore in the form of reclaimed wastewater from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District’s (EVMWD’s) regional water reclamation facility (RWRF). Since 2008, EVMWD has added reclaimed wastewater to Lake Elsinore for lake level stabilization. A deeper lake provides multiple benefits including aesthetics, recreational use, and water quality. EVMWD’s NPDES permit (R8-2013-0017, NPDES No. CA8000027) for this discharge to Lake Elsinore includes requirements for nutrient loads to the lake as follows:
 Total Nitrogen - 12-month running average TN concentration shall not exceed 1 mg/L, and the 5 year running average mass of TN discharged to the Lake shall not exceed 16,372 pounds/year Figure 4-20
Nutrient loading to lake segments by general land use category 368
(7,442 kg/yr), unless the discharger implements a plan, with the approval of the Regional Water Board or its Executive Officer, to offset TN discharges in excess of the TN limits.  Total Phosphorus - 12-month running average TP concentration shall not exceed 0.5 mg/L, and the 5 year running average mass limit for TP discharged to the Lake shall not exceed 8,186 pounds/year (3,721 kg/yr), unless the discharger implements a plan, with the approval of the Regional Water Board or its Executive Officer, to offset TN discharges in excess of the TN limits.

The annual volumes of reclaimed water discharged and estimated total phosphorus and total nitrogen loads are reported in Table 4-8. The estimated load is based on an average annual concentration in effluent from 2014-2016 of 0.37 mg/L TP and 2.83 mg/L TN. Current treatment mechanisms at the RWRF reduce TP to meet the limit concentration of 0.5 mg/L. Conversely, typical TN concentrations exceed the allowable concentration of 1.0 mg/L. Therefore, EVMWD uses nitrogen offset credits accrued by operation of the LEAMS to meet the permit requirements. In years when there is little or no overflow from Canyon Lake, the discharge of reclaimed water to maintain lake levels is the largest source of new external nutrient loads to Lake Elsinore.

Table 4-8. Volume and Estimated Nutrient Load in Supplemental Water Additions to Lake Elsinore Year Reclaimed
Water (AFY)
Island Wells
(AFY
Total
Supplemental
Volume (AFY)
Estimated TP
Load (kg/yr)
Estimated
TN Load
(kg/yr)
2007 2,361 2,361 1070 8267
2008 5,365 359 5,724 2434 19357
2009 5,470 404 5,874 2485 19736
2010 6,039 385 6,425 2743 21792
2011 1,920 6 1,925 872 6926
2012 5,499 295 5,794 2507 19843
2013 5,843 264 6,106 2670 21698
2014 5,778 298 6,075 2651 21458
2015 1,930 50 1,981 891 7169
2007-2015 Average 4,467 258 4,696 2,036 16,250

4.3 Internal Sources
Several sources of nutrients result from processes that happen within the lake ecosystem, including sediment nutrient flux and atmospheric deposition. The following sections describe these processes and estimates associated nutrient loads.

4.3.1 Sediment Nutrient Flux
Nutrients that settle to the bottoms of Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore bound to organic matter or otherwise particle bound are not immediately available for phytoplankton uptake. Instead these nutrients undergo processes within the lake bottom to move from bound to more soluble forms (PO4 and NH4) referred to as diagenesis. Anoxic conditions in the lake bottom sediments increase the rate of 369
digenesis by chemical reduction of iron bound phosphorus to a loosely bound ferrous form and by allowing for anaerobic bacterial decomposition of organic matter in sediments releasing ammonia into pore waters. Flux of these solubilized forms from the lake bottom across the sediment-water interface to the water column occurs by diffusion and physical resuspension.

4.3.1.1 Canyon Lake
Rates of nutrient flux from bottom sediment to the water column vary across Canyon Lake based upon bathymetry and relationship to inflows, and are further influenced by temperature and DO concentration. Based upon core-flux measurements made at a small number of sites (Anderson, 2003), bathymetric survey results and hydroacoustic signature of the sediments, estimates of sediment nutrient flux rates were developed across the lake. Core-flux measurements indicated a modest positive increase in NH4-N flux with water depth, while PO4-P typically exhibited greater flux rates in shallower water, e.g., in East Bay where significant deposition of silt eroded from the watershed are typically deposited. Based upon these considerations, nominal flux rates across the lake for NH4-N and PO4-P were used in model simulations, shown in Figures 4-21 and 4-22, respectively.

Sediment nutrient flux rates in ELCOM-CAEDYM were specified at standard temperature and DO conditions for each bottom cell within the computational domain; the flux rate was then corrected for the temperature and DO condition present at each model time-step (Hipsey, 2014).

Figure 4-21
Modeled flux rate (g/m2/day) of NH4-N from Canyon Lake bottom sediment to overlying water column
370
The average nominal flux rate for NH4-N calculated from Figure 4-21 is 28.5 mg/m2 /day, corresponding
to a daily NH4-N flux of 53.8 kg/day or 19,626 kg/year for the entire 464 acres of simulated lake bottom area. This represents an increase of 6,077 kg/yr over the estimated flux in the 2004 TMDL. The increase is most likely attributed to the larger bottom area involved in the lake water quality model simulation (464 acres compared with 300 acres). For PO4-P flux, the estimated rate was 6.9 mg/m2/d corresponding to an annual average load of 4,724 kg/yr. This load is very close to the load estimated for the 2004 TMDL despite the increased bottom area considered.

4.3.1.2 Lake Elsinore
The 1-D approximation used for modeling of Lake Elsinore necessitates use of average internal loading rates for NH4-N and PO4-P across the lake, modulated by temperature and DO as described above. That is, based upon depth-area-volume information provided for the lake and dynamically simulated lake level, temperature and DO concentration with depth, nutrient flux rates are apportioned to allow for the fraction of the bottom sediments that are shallow, warm and generally well-aerated to release nutrients at a rate that is potentially quite different than deeper anoxic sediments. The nominal PO4-P flux rate was taken as 8 mg/m2/d while the nominal NH4-N flux rate was taken as 80 mg/m2/d based upon coreflux measurements (Anderson 2002). Assuming a lake area of approximately 3000 acres, this corresponds to annual PO4-P and NH4-N inputs to the water column of 35,452 kg and 354,520 kg, respectively.

Figure 4-22
Modeled flux rate (g/m2/day) of PO4-P from Canyon Lake bottom sediment to overlying water column
371

4.3.2 Atmospheric Deposition
Nutrients within air overlying the surface of the lakes settle onto the lake surface and act as a small source of nutrients to the lakes. This source of nutrients to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore has not been re-evaluated since the 2004 TMDL, thus the same estimates are used in this revision. A brief summary is provided below.

Studies by Anderson (2001) 19 for Lake Elsinore and Anderson and Oza (2003) 20 for Canyon Lake estimated atmospheric deposition as part of a nutrient budget analysis. Irrespective of the amount of precipitation in a given year, these studies estimated atmospheric deposition of nutrients to be very small relative to the total nutrient budget, therefore average atmospheric deposition rates for nitrogen and phosphorus from these studies were used without adjusting for precipitation for individual years.

Table 4-9 presents the estimated nutrient loads from atmospheric deposition to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore reported in these studies and incorporated into the 2004 TMDL source assessment.

Table 4-9. Estimated Nutrient Loads from Atmospheric Deposition onto Surface of Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore
Lake Segment Estimated TP Load (kg/yr) Estimated TN Load (kg/yr) Canyon Lake – Main Lake 144 1,253
Canyon Lake – East Bay 77 665
Lake Elsinore 108 11,702

4.4 Summary of Nutrient Sources
There are a several key sources of nutrients to Canyon Lake, Main Lake and East Bay, and Lake Elsinore.

These sources vary seasonally and according to inter-annual climate patters in their relative importance to water column nutrients. This source assessment describes the individual sources and quantifies longterm average loading of nutrients to each lake segment. Table 4-10 presents a summary of all the general nutrient source categories for each lake segment. The relative contribution of each category is also shown as pie charts for Lake Elsinore in Figure 4-23, Canyon Lake Main Lake in Figure 4-24, and Canyon Lake East Bay in Figure 4-25.

Table 4-10. Summary of Nutrient Loads from All General Source Categories General Source Category
Canyon Lake Main Lake Canyon Lake East Bay Lake Elsinore TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) Watershed Runoff 6,160 29,065 2,109 10,105 5,222 20,898 Sediment Nutrient Flux 3,668 15,237 1,056 4,389 35,452 354,520 Atmospheric Deposition 144 1253 77 665 108 11,702
Supplemental Water n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,036 16,250
Total Average Annual Loading 9,972 45,555 3,242 15,160 42,818 403,370

19 Anderson, M.A. 2001. Internal Loading and Nutrient Cycling in Lake Elsinore. Final report submitted to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
20 Anderson, M.A. and Oza, H. 2003. Internal Loading and Nutrient Cycling in Canyon Lake. Final report submitted to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
372
Figure 4-23
Relative contribution of general source categories for Lake Elsinore long-term average annual nutrient budget
Figure 4-24
Relative contribution of general source categories for Canyon Lake Main Lake long-term average annual nutrient budget
373
The single most apparent finding when reviewing the relative source contributions shown in Figures 4- 23 through 4-25 is that internal loads in the form of sediment nutrient flux dominate the long-term nutrient budget for Lake Elsinore, while external loads play a much greater role in the nutrient budgets for Canyon Lake, both in Main Lake and East Bay. This finding has profound consequences for developing compliance milestones and in specifying the most effective implementation approaches for each lake segment.

Recall the basis for setting numeric targets is to create a water quality condition that is equal to or better than what may occur without anthropogenic impacts in the San Jacinto River watershed. This chapter quantifies nutrient sources for the existing developed condition; however, the same general categories of nutrient sources would exist in a reference, or pre-developed, watershed condition. The incremental increase in the combined nutrient loads from a reference watershed to what is quantified in this source assessment represents the reductions that will be required and the basis for setting allocations, as described in the following chapter.

Figure 4-25
Relative contribution of general source categories for Canyon Lake East Bay long-term average annual nutrient budget
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Patrick Safari, Capital Improvement Projects Manager Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2025-13, Awarding a Professional Services Agreement for the Design of Hargrave Grade Separation to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $7,929,775.06 and Approving a 5% Contingency for a Total Project Budget of “Not-to-Exceed” $8,326,263.81 RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2025-13.

BACKGROUND:

The Hargrave Grade Separation has been a priority project for the City of Banning for years. Hargrave Street is an existing north-south arterial road that crosses under the elevated I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks at-grade south of the I-10. Due to the increase of UPRR trains and truck traffic through the Banning Pass area, waiting times at the train tracks crossing have increased significantly in recent years. On average, 34 trains pass through the crossing every 24 hours and the wait time at the crossing can vary between 4 to 8 minutes and often over 10 minutes. With each passing train, traffic stops for several minutes causing massive delays and idling vehicles and trucks on local roads.

On June 8, 2024, the City of Banning entered into a grant agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to provide funds in the amount of $2,800,000 under the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant program for the planning and design of the Hargrave Grade Separation project.

On October 8, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution 2024-161 approving a Funding Agreement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) through the SB 125 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) in the amount of $5,000,000 for the planning and design of the Hargrave Grade Separation project.

On September 27, 2024, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Hargrave Grade Separation Professional Design Services on the City’s public bidding platform. The proposals were due on November 12, 2024. In response to the RFP, three (3) proposals were received and scored from the following consultants:

Consultant Score (Out of 100)
1) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 93.67
2) Mark Thomas & Company 91.33
3) CNS Engineers, Inc. 82.50
The project design services scope will consist of project administration and management, preliminary 386
engineering, environmental documentation, permitting, Plans, Specifications and Estimates. Staff estimates that planning and design will take 3 to 4 years to complete, and it will include approvals from various agencies including California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and various private utility companies.

JUSTIFICATION:

The local community will benefit from the elimination of the Hargrave Street at-grade railroad crossing.

The benefits will include reduction in traffic congestion on local roads that extend onto I-10; reduction in noise pollution caused by passing trains; and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions caused by long idling times of motor vehicles at the railroad crossing. The project will also provide equitable and sustainable infrastructure that will enhance safety and connect the area to economic opportunities in the region.

Staff evaluated the proposals based on qualifications, cost, experience with the requested scope of services and response to the request for proposals. City staff also conducted interviews with all three consultants. As a result, staff recommend the award of a Professional Services Agreement to KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc., in the amount of $7,929,775.06.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. in the amount of $7,929,775.06 and approving a 5% contingency in the amount of $396,488.75 for a total “not-to-exceed” project budget of $ 8,326,263.81.

The project costs are eligible and will be reimbursed through the TIRCP Grant administered by RCTC and RCE Grant administered by FRA. Development Impact Fees (DIF) will be used a local match.

PHASE RCTC (TIRCP
GRANT)

FEDERAL (RCE

GRANT) LOCAL (DIF) TOTAL
Engineering
(PA&ED & PSE)
$5,000,000 $2,800,000 $550,000 $8,350,000
The Professional Services Account will be funded from FY25 to FY28 through Gas Tax Street Fund Expenditure Account No.100-4900-431.90-10 and Account No. 420-4900-431.90-10. Expense will be reimbursed, except for the City local match, by RCTC and FRA.

An appropriation in the amount of $550,000 from Fund 420 (Traffic Facility Improvement Fund) to Account No. 420-4900-431.90-10. Fund 420 has an approximate fund balance of $4,110,472.26.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not approve Resolution 2025-13 and provide alternative direction to staff.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2025-13, Hargrave Grade Sep - Kimley_Horn.docx

2. C01108 - Kimley Horn - DesignPSA for Hargrave Grade Seperation-1.pdf

3. Resolution No. 2024-161.pdf

4. FRA Funding Agreement.pdf
387

5. Kimley-Horn Proposal.pdf
388
Resolution 2025-13

RESOLUTION 2025-13

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

AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF HARGRAVE GRADE SEPARATION TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,929,775.06 AND APPROVING A 5% CONTINGENCY FOR A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF “NOT-TO-EXCEED” $8,326,263.81
WHEREAS, the Hargrave Grade Separation has been a priority project for the City of Banning for years. Hargrave Street is an existing north-south arterial road that crosses under the elevated I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks at-grade south of the I-10; and WHEREAS, due to the increase of UPRR trains and truck traffic through the Banning Pass area, waiting times at the train tracks crossing have increased significantly in recent years. On average, 34 trains pass through the crossing every 24 hours and the wait time at the crossing can vary between 4 to 8 minutes and often over 10 minutes; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2024, the City of Banning entered into a grant agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to provide funds in the amount of $2,800,000 under the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant program for the planning and design of the Hargrave Grade Separation project; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution 2024-161 approving a Funding Agreement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) through the SB-125 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) in the amount of $5,000,000 for the planning and design of the Hargrave Grade Separation project; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2024, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Hargrave Grade Separation Professional Design Services on the City’s public bidding platform and received three (3) proposals ranging in score from 93.67 to 82.50; and WHEREAS, the project design services scope will consist of project administration and management, preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, permitting, Plans, Specifications and Estimates; and
WHEREAS, the local community will benefit from the elimination of the Hargrave Street at-grade railroad crossing. The benefits will include reduction in traffic congestion on local roads that extend onto I-10; reduction in noise pollution caused by passing trains; and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions caused by long idling times of motor vehicles at the railroad crossing; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement to KimleyHorn and Associates Inc. in the amount of $7,929,775.06 and approving a 5% contingency in the amount of $396,488.75 for a total “not-to-exceed” project budget of $ 8,326,263.81; and WHEREAS, the project costs are eligible and will be reimbursed through the TIRCP Grant administered by RCTC and RCE Grant administered by FRA. Development Impact Fees (DIF) will be used as a local match; and
WHEREAS, the project will be funded from FY25 to FY28 through Gas Tax Street Fund Expenditure Account No.100-4900-431.90-10 and Account No. 420-4900-431.90-10 while the City is waiting to get reimbursed by RCTC and FRA; and
389
Resolution 2025-13

WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of $550,000 from Fund 420 (Traffic Facility Improvement Fund) to Account No. 420-4900-431.90-10 is necessary to fund the City’s required match.

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

SECTION 1. The City of Banning approves the Professional Services Agreement between Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and the City of Banning.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Design of Hargrave Grade Separation.

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2025.

Sheri Flynn, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

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

John Pinkney, City Attorney
390
Resolution 2025-13

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2025-13, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of January, 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
391
Resolution 2025-13

EXHIBIT A
Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 392
DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT (C01108) FOR THE

ENGINEERING DESIGN HARGRAVE GRADE SEPARATION

PROJECT
By and Between

THE CITY OF BANNING
and
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
393
-1-

AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(C01108) FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE HARGRAVE

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

THIS AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this day: _________________, by and between the CITY OF BANNING, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”.

RECITALS
A. City has sought by a Request for a Proposal (RFP 24-085) for the performance of the services for Engineering Design Services for the Hargrave Grade Separation Project and as further defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services.

In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which services may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder and which relate the Engineering Design Services prepared in connection therewith. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be of good quality, 394
-2-
fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.

1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.

This Agreement shall include the Request for Proposal or Invitation for Bids (“Contract Documents”) and the Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or in Consultant’s accepted bid proposal (“Accepted Bid”) shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the Contract Documents, Accepted Bid, and/or Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law.

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

1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.

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

1.5 Familiarity with Work.

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

1.6 Care of Work.

The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.
395
-3-

1.7 Further Responsibilities of Parties.

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

1.8 Additional Services.

City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to five percent (5%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services or reasonably contemplated therein. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor.

1.9 Facilities and Equipment.

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

1.10 Special Requirements.

Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern. 396
-4-
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Contract Sum.

Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed Seven Million Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars and Six Cents ($7,929,775.06) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8.

2.2 Method of Compensation.

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

2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.

Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual sub-consultant expenses if an approved sub-consultant pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.

Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.

2.4 Invoices.

Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance.

By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-consultant contracts. Sub-consultant charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.

City may independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3. City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by the City 397
-5-
of any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.

2.5 Waiver.

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

ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance.

Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions of the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.

3.3 Force Majeure.

The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the Parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

3.4 Term.

The Term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date through June 30, 2028, unless sooner terminated as provided in Article 7 of this Agreement, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”). Maximum term and any subsequent amendment or modification shall not exceed five (5) years.
398
-6-
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK

4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.

The following principals of Consultant (Principals) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

Name Title
Darren Adrian, PE Project Manager/Senior Vice President It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.

Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and subconsultants, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and sub-consultants, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desire to reassign any staff or sub-consultant of Consultant, Consultant shall, immediately upon reassign notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.

4.2 Status of Consultant.

Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.

4.3 Contract Officer.

The Contract Officer shall be such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 399
-7-

4.4 Independent Consultant.

Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent Consultant of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent Consultant with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venture or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant.

4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.

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

ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDS

5.1 Insurance Coverages.

Throughout the life of this Agreement, Consultant shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect all policies of insurance required hereunder with an insurance company(ies) either (i) admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California and rated not less than “A- VII” in Best's Insurance Rating Guide, or (ii) authorized by the City Manager or his/her designee at any time and in his/her sole discretion. The following policies of insurance are required:
(i) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage Form CG 00 01 and include insurance for “bodily injury,” “property damage” and “personal and advertising injury” with coverage for premises and operations (including the use of owned and non-owned equipment), products and completed operations, and contractual liability (including, without limitation, indemnity obligations under the Contract) with limits of liability of not less than the following:
$1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage 400
-8-
$1,000,000 per occurrence for personal and advertising injury $2,000,000 general aggregate
(ii) COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Service Office (ISO) Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01, and include coverage for all owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles or other licensed vehicles (Code 1 Any Auto) with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(iii) WORKERS’ COMPENSATION insurance as required under the California Labor Code.
(iv) EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY insurance with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 disease policy limit and $1,000,000 disease each employee.
(v) PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) insurance appropriate to Consultant’s profession, with limits of liability of $1,000,000 per claim/occurrence and $1,000,000 policy aggregate.

In the event Consultant purchases an Umbrella or Excess insurance policy(ies) to meet the minimum limits of insurance set forth above, this insurance policy(ies) shall “follow form” and afford no less coverage than the primary insurance policy(ies).

If this Agreement continues for more than three (3) years duration, or in the event the City Manager or his/her designee determines that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to the City, the Consultant agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance policies may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the City Manager, or his/her designee.

Consultant shall be responsible for payment of any deductibles contained in any insurance policies required hereunder and Consultant shall also be responsible for payment of any self-insured retentions.

Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by, the City Manager or his/her designee. At the option of the City Manager or his/her designee, either: (i) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects to City, its Council members, officers, officials, employees and agents; or (ii) Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee, satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. At no time shall the City be responsible for the payment of any deductibles or self-insured retentions.

5.2 General Requirements.

All policies of insurance required hereunder shall be endorsed to provide that the coverage shall not be cancelled, non-renewed, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 calendar day written notice has been given to City. Upon issuance by the insurer, broker, or agent of a notice of cancellation, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage or in limits, Consultant shall furnish City with a new certificate and applicable endorsements for such policy(ies). In the event any policy is 401
-9-
due to expire during the work to be performed for City, Consultant shall provide a new certificate, and applicable endorsements, evidencing renewal of such policy not less than 15 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the expiring policy.

The General Liability and Automobile Liability insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence form. The General Liability (including ongoing and completed operations) and Automobile Liability shall name City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as an additional insured. Such policy(ies) of insurance shall be endorsed so Consultant’s insurance shall be “primary and non-contributory” and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. The Workers’ Compensation insurance policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation as to City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.

Should Consultant maintain insurance with broader coverage and/or limits of liability greater than those shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits of liability maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City.

If the Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) insurance policy is written on a claims-made form:

1. The retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the effective date of the Agreement or the commencement of work by Consultant.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least three years after any expiration or termination of the Agreement or, in the alternative, the policy shall be endorsed to provide not less than a three-year discovery period.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the effective date of the Agreement or the commencement of work by Consultant, Consultant must purchase extended reporting coverage for a minimum of three years following the expiration or termination of the Agreement.

4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to City for review.

5. These requirements shall survive expiration or termination of the Agreement.

Consultant shall furnish City with all certificate(s) and applicable endorsements effecting coverage required hereunder. All certificates and applicable endorsements are to be received and approved by the City Manager or his/her designee prior to City’s execution of the Agreement and before work commences.

If at any time during the life of this Agreement or any extension, Consultant or any of its subcontractors fail to maintain any required insurance in full force and effect, all work under this Agreement shall be discontinued immediately, and all payments due or that become due to Consultant shall be withheld until notice is received by City that the required insurance has been restored to full force and effect and that the premiums therefore have been paid for a period satisfactory to City. Any failure to maintain the required insurance shall be sufficient cause for 402
-10-
City to terminate this Agreement. No action taken by City hereunder shall in any way relieve Consultant of its responsibilities under this Agreement.

Upon request of City, Consultant shall immediately furnish City with a complete copy of any insurance policy required under this Agreement, including all endorsements, with said copy certified by the underwriter to be a true and correct copy of the original policy. This requirement shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.

The fact that insurance is obtained by Consultant shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of Consultant, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. The duty to indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Consultant. Approval or purchase of any insurance contracts or policies shall in no way relieve from liability nor limit the liability of Consultant, its principals, officers, employees, agents, persons under the supervision of Consultant, vendors, suppliers, invitees, subcontractors, or anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them.

If Consultant should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to provide insurance protection in favor of City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers in accordance with the terms of each of the preceding paragraphs, except that the subcontractors’ certificates and endorsements shall be on file with Consultant and City prior to the commencement of any work by the subcontractor.

5.3 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend.

A. Indemnity for Design Professional Services. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys, or other professionals and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs of defense (collectively “Liabilities”), whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, material men, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement by a “design professional,” as the term is defined under California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c).

If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance as a “design professional” (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.
403
-11-
B. Other Indemnities.
1) Other than in the performance of design professional services, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the Indemnitees from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys, or other professionals and all costs associated therewith and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Claims”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Claims arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Consultant shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Claim with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith.
2) Consultant shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws. City may offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this subparagraph B.2). 3) Consultant shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.

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

C. Workers’ Compensation Acts not Limiting. Consultant’s indemnifications and obligations under this Section, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
404
-12-
D. Insurance Requirements not Limiting. City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may possess against Consultant because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The indemnities in this Section shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Liabilities, tax, assessment, penalty or interest asserted against City.

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

ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

6.1 Records.

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

6.2 Reports.

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

6.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, sub-consultants and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of 405
-13-
ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, revise or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied therein. All sub-consultants shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom.

6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or sub-consultants, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or sub-consultant of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct. (d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or sub-consultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION

7.1 California Law.

This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the Parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal 406
-14-
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in Riverside.

7.2 Disputes; Default.

In the event that City determines Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.

7.3 Retention of Funds.

Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any payment amount of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

7.4 Waiver.

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

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

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

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.

Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative and the exercise by either Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or 407
-15-
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other Party.

7.6 Legal Action.

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

7.7 Liquidated Damages.

Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of this Agreement, the Consultant and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the sum of Not Applicable ($0.00) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of any service required hereunder, as specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”). The City may withhold from any monies payable on account of services performed by the Consultant any accrued liquidated damages.

7.8 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.

This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating Party need not provide the non-terminating Party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.

7.9 Termination for Default of Consultant.

If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the 408
-16-
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.

7.10 Attorneys’ Fees.

If either Party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition the Party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION

8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.

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

8.2 Conflict of Interest.

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

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

8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.

Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, 409
-17-
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement.

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

8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.

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

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notices.

Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either Party desires or is required to give to the other Party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer, CITY OF BANNING, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either Party may change its address by notifying the other Party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.

9.2 Interpretation.

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

9.3 Counterparts.

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

9.4 Integration; Amendment.

This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the Parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the Parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the Parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by 410
-18-
the City Council. The Parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

9.5 Severability.

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

9.6 Corporate Authority.

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

9.7 Electronic Signatures.

Each Party may adopt as its signature an electronic identification consisting of a symbol or code that is affixed to or contained in each document transmitted by such Party (“electronic signature”). The Parties hereto herby agree that electronic signatures are acceptable, shall have the same force and effect under the law as original wet signatures, and shall be sufficient to verify that the Parties have executed this Agreement and such other documents transmitted by the Parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
411
-19-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.

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

NAME: Date
TITLE:

ATTEST:

Tax ID No.

Caroline Patton Date
Deputy City Clerk
Address:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Council Approval: _____________
Date
City Attorney
NOTE: PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO BIND CONTRACTING PARTY REQUIRED. APPROPRIATE

ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
412
Exhibit “A”-1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services in connection with providing Professional Engineering Design Services for the Hargrave Grade Separation Project prepared in connection therewith:

II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products and services to City:
413

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following is provided as a guideline as to what the City of Banning expects in the scope of work for the project; however, this is just a guideline. Consultant shall provide services necessary to provide a complete (construction ready) project. Modifications to the scope below may be necessary and the information below does not constitute all the necessary work for the consultant to complete the project.

Roadway Design
• All pavement, sidewalk, and roadway redesign from Ramsey Street to Lincoln Street including I10 E/W on and off ramps. • Pedestrian Guardrails, impact attenuators and other safety barriers.

Bridge/Railroad Track Design
• Development of concept level Preliminary Bridge Plans. • Design of all temporary track work, including any associated shoo-fly track alignment to serve as a temporary shoo-fly bypass to allow staged construction. • Develop an acceptable staging scheme, including preliminary design of vertical shoring/sheet piling as necessary to stabilize a temporary shoo-fly alignment and adjacent embankments. • Professional engineering design services to develop preliminary and final Design plans for the new UPRR track.

Geotechnical/Retaining Walls
• Geotechnical recommendations for all retaining walls. • Geotechnical recommendations for temporary shoring for shoo-fly track.

Traffic
• Traffic Control plans including alternate pedestrian route plans. • New permanent signing for all geometric changes.
• Traffic control signal system for the I-10 E/W on and off ramps. • Street lighting for the new roadway.
• Pavement Marking (Striping).

Hydrology & Hydraulics
• Evaluation of existing drainage and development of preliminary and final Hydrology and Hydraulic reports.
• Erosion control and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) design The following Scope of Services tasks must be listed and addressed on the proposal submitted to the City:

1. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
This task includes the day-to-day management of the Project. The Consultant Project Manager shall maintain ongoing liaison with the City Project Manager, agency contacts, railroad, regulatory agencies and utility companies to promote effective coordination during the course of project development. The following management and administrative duties shall be performed:

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 2
414
• Supervise project staff, subconsultants, coordinate, and monitor work for conformance with set standards and policies.
• Conduct internal meetings with project staff and subconsultants. • Prepare, circulate, and file correspondence and memoranda, as appropriate. • Maintain Project files using specified Project Filing System.

Applying for and obtaining permits necessary for design is included under Task 8.

1.1. GENERAL MEETINGS AND COORDINATION
Effort for day-to-day management of the project entails ongoing communication with the City Project Manager via email, phone, and focus meetings. We estimate up to 40 virtual meetings and 10 inperson meetings with the City.

1.2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
A comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) will be prepared to communicate this scope of services and technical requirements to project participants. The PMP shall identify the procedures and technical requirements that are to be followed in developing project deliverables. The PMP shall also describe the responsibilities of each participant in the project. The following items shall be in the PMP:
• Scope of Services
• Log of Deliverables
Consultant shall prepare a list of deliverables indicating the applicable Scope of Services section, dates submitted/approved, and file locations conforming to the Project's electronic filing system.
• Baseline Project Schedule
A Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule shall be prepared by the Consultant and shall be updated on a monthly basis. The initial CPM schedule shall be provided within two (2) weeks from Notice to Proceed (NTP). This schedule shall be included in the PMP and will serve as the baseline schedule for the Project. The schedule shall include a list of tasks and sub-tasks, milestones, major activities and deliverables. Agency review times of each submittal shall be included in the schedule. Four (4) weeks shall be assumed for Caltrans, Kinder Morgan and agency review of each submittal package. Issuance of needed permits shall also be included.
• Project Electronic Filing System
Project files shall be indexed in accordance with Caltrans' Project Development Uniform File System.
• CADD Procedures
Plans shall be prepared in AutoCAD 2022 format or newer. All plans within Caltrans right-of- way will be prepared in conformance with the latest Caltrans CADD User's Manual and the Caltrans Drafting Manual. For items outside of Caltrans right-of-way, plans shall be prepared according to City Standards. • Invoicing Instructions
Consultant monthly invoices shall be reported by task and shall be EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 3
415
accompanied by a progress report. The City shall supply invoicing requirements for inclusion in the PMP.
• Design Standards
Consultant shall prepare a list of applicable design standards. Plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with current AASHTO and Caltrans' regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards.

Compliance with American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects and/or County or City Standards shall also be required, as appropriate. Plans, specifications, and estimates for the bridge shall be prepared in accordance with current Caltrans standards.

Roadway, water, sewer, oil products pipeline, lighting, signal, landscape, traffic striping and signage, traffic control, erosion control and drainage plans shall be prepared on City/utility standard plan and profile sheets. Design of improvements within Caltrans right-of-way may need to be prepared per Caltrans respective standard drawings and plans.
• Health and Safety Plan
• General Prevailing Wage Determinations
• Risk Assessment Register
The PMP shall be distributed to each project participant at the beginning of the project.

Deliverables
• Project Management Plan
• Baseline Project Schedule

1.3.QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
As part of the Quality Control Plan, the Consultant shall prepare and maintain a Quality Management System (QMS) Manual throughout performance of services. The intent is to monitor quality to ensure that reports, plans, studies, estimates, and other deliverables submitted are complete, accurate, checked, conform to UPRR, Caltrans and City standards, and meet professional engineering practice standards in effect at the time of execution. The QMS Manual shall be submitted to the City within thirty (30) calendar days of NTP. Consultant shall hold a training session with all project participants responsible for the development and/or checking of deliverables to ensure the appropriate procedures are followed.

Deliverables:
• Quality Management System Manual
o We anticipate using Microsoft Project for the CPM Schedule. o We generally anticipate using UPRR standards for the new underpass structure and Caltrans standards for the walls within Caltrans right-of-way.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 4
416

1.4. PROJECT CONTROLS (BUDGETING, COST ACCOUNTING, AND PROGRESS REPORTING) This task will establish the baseline project controls for which the project performance will be measured against on a monthly basis.

Consultant shall prepare budgets for each task and milestone for the Project. Such budgets will be entered into the Consultant's Management Information System along with actual costs incurred and used as a basis for cost monitoring and control.

Consultant shall prepare monthly reports of expenditures for the Project by task and milestone.

Expenditures include direct labor costs, other direct costs, and subconsultant costs. These reports will be included as supporting data for invoices presented to the City every month and shall be in accordance with the City's invoicing requirements.

Progress reports shall also be prepared in accordance with City guidelines and shall accompany monthly invoices. The project schedule shall be updated on a monthly basis as well and shall show actual progress to date versus the baseline project schedule.

Deliverables:
• Baseline Project Controls
• Monthly Invoices
• Monthly Progress Reports
• Monthly Project Schedule Updates

1.5. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEETINGS
Project Development Team (PDT) meetings shall be conducted throughout the environmental, right-of-way, and PS&E phases of the Project. The City shall identify the members of the PDT, which shall include the City Project Manager, the Consultant team, and other representatives from affected agencies. PDT meetings will be held at least once a month and may be held on a bi-weekly basis as necessary. The Consultant shall provide the meeting agenda and will prepare exhibits (as needed) for discussion. The Consultant shall prepare meeting minutes and shall distribute the minutes to all attendees within seven (7) days after the meeting.

Minutes shall include, at a minimum:
• A list of attendees with phone numbers and email.
• A synopsis of discussion items.
• Any pertinent information, action items, and all follow-ups to the action items.

Assumptions:
• Up to thirty-six (36) PDT meetings
Deliverables:
• PDT Meeting Agendas
• PDT Meeting Minutes
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 5
417
For attendees, we anticipate the project manager, key discipline leads that have active reporting items, and additional subject matter experts and support determined to be necessary for reporting to the PDT.

2. DATA COLLECTION
The Project will involve the review and assimilation of a large amount of existing data and the generation of new data. The Consultant shall perform research of agency records, as necessary, to secure the information, clearances, and/or plan review services required to identify, locate, and accurately layout improvements above and underground within City Rightof-Way (ROW), private properties affected by the Project, UPRR, County of Riverside, RCFC&WCD, Kinder Morgan, SoCal Gas, Edison, and within Caltrans ROW. Consultant shall layout easements, centerline, ROW, addresses and private property lines.

Consultant shall perform research of records including utilities, and other agency records as necessary to secure information required to identify, locate, and accurately layout existing utilities, improvements, easements, and rights-of-way within project limits that may interfere with the proposed improvements. The information to be researched includes the following:
• Review existing utility and street record drawing plans. • Review existing, I-10 overpass bridge as-built plans and inspection reports. • Perform utility investigation/utility coordination and provide utility relocation recommendations. • Perform an existing utility easement investigation (Prior Rights for proposed relocation). • Coordinate with the Right-of-Way Acquisition Consultant to perform field investigation and measurement to assess existing site conditions.
• Provide a copy of utility notification letters prior to first progress payment request.

Previous studies, relevant reports, and existing data will be evaluated to capture elements and information that can be useful in developing the project. Consultant shall make the best use of existing data to minimize waste and duplication of work efforts. Three (3) field visits are anticipated to accomplish the data collection tasks.

2.1. AERIAL MAPPING
The project alignment will be flown to produce topographic mapping with a 1-foot contour interval and current high resolution aerial photographs. The anticipated topographic Project limits are along Hargrave Street between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street including the I-10 freeway bridge and ramps. Plan shall also include along the UPRR R/W for a distance necessary for the design of temporary shoo-fly tracks during the construction phase, and shall be consistent with UPRR survey requirements and standards.

The site will be flown twice, once to develop a base to be used in preliminary design and a second time, following approval by Caltrans of Consultant's ABC Mapping plan. Caltrans review and approval may take anywhere from 4 to 6 months, therefore the need for the initial base mapping in areas where information will be necessary for critical design.

Pre-ABC Mapping aerial topo will be collected per City Standards. The data will be collected and provided to the design team, while awaiting approval on the Caltrans ABC Mapping EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 6
418
submittals. Once Caltrans approves proposed ABC Mapping, Consultant will fly the larger proposed Caltrans ABC Mapping area to prepare an aerial that will adhere to Caltrans design standards. Consultant shall coordinate with the City and Caltrans staff to perform ABC Mapping based on Caltrans submittal requirements.

Deliverables:
• Digital Terrain Model (.dtm) in CADD format
• Digital orthophoto in digital (.tif) format
Surveys shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with the current Caltrans "Survey Manual" and its revisions, as well as UPRR requirements. Work not covered by the manual shall be performed in accordance with accepted professional surveying standards. The Consultant shall be responsible for verifying the data with the City. Consultant shall obtain applicable encroachment permits prior to beginning any field investigation. Consultant and Subconsultants shall obtain necessary training including applicable rail safety program prior to performing field investigations. All said training shall be at the sole cost of the Consultant and at no additional cost to the City.

Consultant shall perform design surveys including mapping and mapping updates, necessary to complete a constructible PS&E. This includes horizontal and vertical control, drainage surveys, topographical surveys, cross sections, grid grades, open-ended traverses, profile data sheets and required documentation. Surveys performed by Consultant shall conform to the requirements of the Land Surveyors Act and per Authority's direction. In accordance with the Act, "responsible charge" for the work shall reside with a Registered Civil Engineer registered prior to January 1, 1982, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, in the State of California.

The surveyor shall complete a topographic survey map of the site to prepare a base map for the street improvement demolition and construction plans, bridge plans, utilities existing and new and relocation plans (if any), landscape and irrigation plans, aesthetics plans, and rightof-way engineering. The field survey will also be required to provide existing property corners (for determination of right-of-way take), spot elevations, identify any unknown features, identify all known existing utilities in the street and on private property, cross sections, and add a greater level of detail for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) storm drain connection. Develop a base map of the proposed alignment, including public right-of-way and proposed right-of-way take with new legal descriptions. Plats, Record of Survey, property lot lines, street centerlines, benchmarks, monuments, and control points shall be confirmed and shown on the plans. Conduct site visits to identify existing improvements and conditions that may affect the design and construction of the proposed project and existing site conditions. Provide one (l)-foot contours based on City of Banning vertical datum. Establish street centerlines, right-of-way lines existing and proposed, and all easements from available record information. Provide the basis-of-bearing and benchmark information used for the survey and necessary for construction. Consultant shall locate and tie EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 7
419
any features that would affect the design or construction.

Conduct a thorough independent field investigation of the project site to identify pre-existing site conditions and physical constraints of the project area. Consultant shall obtain Record of Surveys, benchmark and centerline tie information.

Site Control
Consultant shall establish a site-wide network of horizontal/vertical control to serve as the basis for any subsequent boundary, topographic, or construction staking surveys that may be required throughout the course of the project. Unless otherwise specified by the City, all horizontal control established for this project will be based on the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), Zone 6 State Plane Coordinates. Unless otherwise specified by the City, elevations will be based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

If different coordinate systems are required by different agencies, Consultant shall provide detail on those systems and how the disparate work will tie together.

Tie Out Monument
Consultant will tie-out monuments for right-of-way and parcel line delineation.

Design level surveys provided within the proposed project limits shall include the following:
• Full cross sections within the street improvements
• Top of rail elevations
• Off-site survey to assist in restoration of impacted improvements. • All surface utilities including overhead lines as necessary to verify clearances. • Maintenance hole rim and inverts for all sewer and storm drain facilities.

Pothole and geotechnical boring locations shall be surveyed to the maximum extent feasible.

Assumptions:
• Five (5) days of UPRR Flagmen services are included in this scope. • Five (5) days of traffic control are included in this scope. • Engineer Stamped Traffic Control Plans are not included. Any field survey requiring traffic control is assumed to be performed in accordance with the WATCH Manual. If required, Consultant can prepare Traffic Control Plans signed by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer for field survey work for an additional fee.
• Consultant shall be responsible, with City's assistance (as needed), for obtaining permits to survey within UPRR, Caltrans right-of-way. • Aerial mapping shall be used as a base map and spliced with ground survey data.

Deliverables:
• Survey base map in CADD format
• Survey points in CADD format
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 8
420
• Aerial mapping limits along UPRR right-of-way are from 200 feet west of San Gorgonio Avenue
• to 5,000 feet east of Hargrave Street.
• Aerial mapping limits along Hargrave Street will be extended to the south to 200 feet south of
• Charles Street to cover the anticipated storm drain extension. • We anticipate only one flight for the aerial mapping as we intend to obtain initial concurrence of flight path from Caltrans without delay. That way, adjustments based on approval of the ABC process can be made to the original flight data, if needed. We have included a second flight as optional if needed.
• Supplemental ground surveys encompass the following work with a two-man field crew:
o Up to four field days for control.
o Up to three field days for necessary boundary surveys. o Up to five field days of tie-in and supplemental surveys along Hargrave Street and the fronting properties. This also encompasses utility features and necessary manhole dips.
o Up to two field days to obtain necessary filed shots and dips along the Hargrave Street between Charles Street and Lincoln Street for the storm drain extension. o Up to five field days for cross sections, topographic features, and utility features within UPRR right-of-way.
o Up to two field days of field surveys to obtain tie-in and topographic features along the freeway interchange ramps up to the gore area. o Up to three field days to obtain pothole shots.
• Second Aerial Survey (Optional)
o Provide second aerial survey flight of project per ABC process should approval not be acquired with the first survey.

2.2. POTHOLING
The Consultant will perform utility investigation services (per ASCE 38-02, Level "B") using industry acceptable methods (i.e., electronic pipe and cable locating equipment, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Pipeline Current Mapper (PCM), etc.) to determine the approximate horizontal position and count of existing utilities within the project limits. The Consultant's field crews will use a combination of water-based paint and pin flags (in the appropriate APWA color) to mark the results of the investigation on the ground surface. Consultant will compare any available utility record information with the results of field investigation services to ensure utilities have been accounted for. Utilities not identifiable by Consultant's field crews due to lack of utility record information or above ground appurtenances will be marked with pink paint on the ground surface and annotated as "Unknown" on project deliverables.

Gravity lines such as sewer, storm sewer, etc., typically cannot be located using the above methods due to lack of tracer wire or depth of the utility being beyond the limitations for GPR.

In the event these utilities cannot be located, and precise location and depth is needed, vacuum excavation (potholing) will be provided from Potholing Task. If CCTV pipeline inspection is required, City of Banning staff will provide the videos.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 9
421
The Consultant will perform utility potholes (per ASCE 38-02, Level "A") using air vacuum excavation at predetermined locations to document the precise horizontal and vertical position of existing utilities within the investigation area. Data collected as a result of potholing activities will be presented in a Portable Document Format (PDF) report that will include pothole number, utility type, size, material, depth and pictures of the exposed utility, and picture of the wooden lath with pothole information clearly visible. Pothole locations (in the field) will be marked with wooden lath and ribbon marked with the pothole number, utility size and depth or MAG nail with pertinent utility data annotated on the ground surface. Once the utility data has been collected the pothole will be restored to its previous condition using native backfill and in-kind surface restoration materials.

Once utilities have been marked, the Consultant will perform a topographic survey of the area of interest to document the utilities The Consultant will provide an AutoCAD 2022 (or later version) drawing with utility mapping. The Consultant will also provide a PDF or TIF file of the AutoCAD drawing printable to scale on standard title block.

Consultant shall coordinate the use of field survey crews to locate potholed utilities by coordinates and elevations based on the project's survey controls.

Assumptions
• Up to 70 potholes are included in this scope.
• Right-of-entry to private properties shall be obtained by the City prior to commencing Utility locations activities.
• Engineer Stamped Traffic Control Plans are not included. Any potholing requiring traffic control is assumed to be performed in accordance with the WATCH Manual. If required, Consultant can prepare Traffic Control Plans signed by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer for potholing work for an additional fee.
• Complex traffic control and traffic calming devices beyond the use of arrow boards, traffic cones and advanced warning signage are not anticipated and are not included. Complex traffic control items include, but are not limited to:
 Message Boards
 Police Officers
 Attenuators
 Traffic Barrels
 Concrete Barricades
 Flaggers (UPRR Flagmen included under railroad permitting costs) • Additional utility potholes and/or crew hours without written approval from the City will not be reimbursed.
• Special backfill and/or asphalt restoration requirements (e.g., hot patch asphalt, half-sack slurry, aggregate base backfill...etc.) are not EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 10
422
included
Deliverables:
• Matrix of Pothole Information
• Pothole Data Plan (to be included in milestone PS&E submittals) • Potholes will be backfilled with material excavated and we assume there are no hazardous materials.
• Surface restoration will match existing with no special backfill. Do not anticipate impacting decorative features. Asphalt areas will be treated with cold patch asphalt concrete (AC). AC grinding and hot-patch AC is not included

2.3. RIGHT-OF-WAY BASE MAPPING
The Consultant shall perform research of private development plans adjacent to or affecting the Project site, as necessary, to secure the information, clearances, and/or plan review services required to identify, locate, and accurately layout above and underground improvements and easements, centerline, ROW, and private property lines. Consultant shall research and review previous work performed to date in the Project vicinity that impacts the design of the improvements, including:
• Existing improvement plans/engineering reports of record • Right-of-way mapping, ownership records (Title Reports) • Preliminary engineering and reports for this Project
• Environmental clearance and mitigation measures
• City/other agency engineering design standards, codes, and plan processing procedures • Existing topographic mapping, photos, reports, maintenance reports, "as-built" plans, record maps and surveys, study reports, assessor maps, contract documents, utility index maps, local street improvement/development plans and other pertinent data will be obtained and reviewed.

Cadastral research will be conducted at the County Surveyor's Office and the City to obtain copies of any available record maps, including Assessors Maps, Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Records of Survey, Centerline Ties and Benchmark Data.

Key centerline monuments will be located along the street segments and calculate the centerline and record right-of-way alignments of the same. The centerline will be established from a combination of found monuments, centerline ties, and record data obtained during the data collection phase. Street and railroad rights-of-way and adjoining parcel lines will be established from record cadastral research and assessor data where applicable.

The Consultant shall prepare right-of-way base maps in accordance with Caltrans requirements. Base maps shall show existing features consisting of lots along Hargrave Street with all right-of-way and easement areas, assessor's parcel numbers, addresses, types of businesses, property lines, footprints of buildings, setback distances from right-of-way to buildings, vegetation, and improvements in the take areas and existing driveways. Utility easements and other encumbrances shall be identified and plotted on the Right-of-Way Base EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 11
423
Map.

Mapping of the existing residential tract shall extend to 4 lots westerly of Hargrave Street.

Assumptions:
• Right-of-way base mapping shall be based on record data. • Title Reports costs shall be included in this scope.

Deliverables
• Right-of-Way Base Map in CADD format
• Mapping will extend four lots westerly of Hargrave Street between Lincoln Street and John Street to cover the residential tract. The remaining areas will map only the lots directly adjacent to Hargrave Street. • It is assumed that up to 14 title reports and an allowance of $13,300.

2.4. UTILITY NOTIFICATION
Consultant will initiate the utility company notification process early in the design process and identify potential conflicts. Consultant will maintain a utility agency tracking matrix to indicate the status of communication and add a contact list for substructure and utility owner-operators for the specifications. Consultant will assist the city with utility notification letters consisting of the following:
• Utility Information requests including City owned utilities such as water, sewer, storm drain, and electric.
• Prepare to Relocate Notice/Final Utility Notice Form. • Notice to relocate.

Assumptions:
• Letters to be printed on City letterhead and signed by City official for distribution. • All related fees from utility companies are included in this scope.

Deliverables:
• Utility Contact Matrix.
• PDF copies of correspondence and data provided in responses to letters. • It is anticipated coordination with the following utility agencies: Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, AT&T, City of Banning Electric, City of Banning Municipal Water and Wastewater, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, Verizon, Spectrum, and Frontier.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 12
424
• Anticipate preparing the utility letters in Microsoft Word format, which will be sent to the City for printing and signature by a City official. We will distribute signed utility notices to utility companies in PDF format by email.
• Provide an allowance of $2,000 for related fees requested from utility companies. This will be tracked in accordance with invoicing procedures.

2.5. UTILITY BASE MAPPING
In addition to information provided by the owning utility companies and through research of other record maps, field surveys shall be used to locate utility surface features such as manholes, valves, fire hydrants, poles, risers, etc., which shall be reflected on the plans.

Consultant shall prepare preliminary plans, which shall include existing utilities (above ground and below ground) identified by location, size, type, and owner, as appropriate.

Assumptions:
• Content is based on readily available record drawings and field surveys.

Deliverables:
• Utility Base Map in CADD format.
• Field surveys for utilities is described above under the Aerial Mapping task.

2.6. GEOTECHNICAL RECORDS RESEARCH & FINDINGS
Consultant will collect and review existing pertinent subsurface and groundwater data from nearby structures or published geologic maps to determine general subsurface conditions at the Project site.

Assumptions:
• Borings are not needed at this stage. Borings shall be performed once the Project has been fully defined for the PS&E phase.

Deliverables: None.

2.7. TRAFFIC ANALYSES
Preliminary Traffic Analysis
Consultant shall prepare preliminary traffic analysis using existing data to confirm the City of Banning Circulation Element requirements along Hargrave Street, and preliminary intersection analyses to confirm Level of Service (LOS) of proposed connector road concepts.

Assumptions: N/A
Deliverables: None
Update Traffic Analysis
Consultant shall:

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 13
425
• Collect traffic counts at intersections and roadway segments. • Update traffic analysis confirming the ultimate six traffic lanes along Hargrave Street.

NOTE: Project anticipates construction of 4-lane divided Hargrave from the EB I-10 Ramps to Lincoln. Ultimate 6-lane widening will be by a separate project at such a date (currently unprogrammed/unknown) that Caltrans reconstructs the overcrossing at Hargrave to accommodate additional lanes.
• Update intersection analysis along Hargrave Street for intersections including and between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street.
• Evaluate existing, opening year, and future year analysis conditions.

A Draft and Final Traffic Analysis Report shall be prepared.

Assumptions:
• Traffic counts include up to six (6) intersections and up to five (5) roadway segments.
• Future RIVTAM traffic model volumes to be obtained from County of Riverside to measure VMT performance.
• Consider programmed projects for future volume scenario, such as the I-10 Bypass. • Update land use data for the airport redevelopment area in RIVTAM. • VMT analysis is not required based on the proposed improvement to grade separate and remain Statutory Exempt (SE) under CEQA.
• Traffic counts will be collected at up to ten (10) intersections and up to five (5) roadway segments to accommodate analysis for both the traffic study and Traffic Management Plan (TMP).
• The Traffic Analysis Report (TAR) for the proposed project will be prepared based on discussion with City staff. The TAR will be prepared consistent with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines for roadway projects. The TAR will evaluate existing traffic conditions, opening year conditions, and design year conditions for project alternatives. The analysis will be prepared for review and approval by City staff and will examine traffic operations under the following analysis scenarios:
o Existing conditions
o Opening Year No Build Alternative conditions
o Opening Year with Build Alternative conditions (one design alternative) o Design Year No Build Alternative conditions
o Design Year with Build Alternative conditions (one design alternative) • Additionally, for purposes of this scope of work, study intersections affected due to the proposed project needs to be evaluated to demonstrate adequacy in intersection capacity during weekday AM/PM peak hour conditions. The TAR is anticipated to examine the following six intersections:
o Hargrave Street/Ramsey Street
o Hargrave Street/I-10 Westbound Ramps
o Hargrave Street/I-10 Eastbound Ramps
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 14
426
o Hargrave Street/John Street
o Hargrave Street/Plaza Street
o Hargrave Street/Lincoln Street
• The TAR is also anticipated to examine the following five roadway segments:
o Hargrave Street, between Ramsey Street and I-10 Westbound Ramps o Hargrave Street, between I-10 Westbound Ramps and I-10 Eastbound Ramps o Hargrave Street, between I-10 Eastbound Ramps and John Street o Hargrave Street, between John Street and Plaza Street o Hargrave Street, between Plaza Street and Lincoln Street • The TAR will be subject to City review and approval only. Caltrans will review and approve the traffic documents outlined in the next section.

Deliverables:
• Draft Traffic Analysis Report
• Final Traffic Analysis Report

2.8. CALTRANS TRAFFIC REPORTS
Consultant shall prepare traffic reports for Caltrans review and approval. The following reports are included in this scope:
• Intersection Control Evaluation
• Traffic Forecasting Volumes Report
Intersection Control Evaluation
Consultant shall prepare Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation for the I-10 EB/WB ramps to identify effective intersection traffic control strategies. A separate analysis report shall be prepared to document the findings and recommendations to be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval.

Assumptions:
• Traffic signal installations at the EB/WB ramps where none exist currently. • Striping reconfiguration on Hargrave Street through the freeway intersection area.

Deliverables:
• Intersection Control Evaluation
Traffic Forecasting Volumes Report
A Caltrans Traffic Forecasting Volumes Report will be prepared to be used for the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. The report will be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval.

Caltrans updated the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) process to the Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP). We will prepare a Step 2 ISOAP analysis per the Caltrans ISOAP Guide dated September 2024.

Participate in a meeting with the Caltrans ICE/ISOAP Coordinator to develop performance EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 15
427
measures (qualitative and quantitative), as well as to establish the tools to be used in evaluating the predicted safety performance (e.g., intersection only vs. the entire interchange system, Caltrans simple calculator vs. the IHSDM). Consideration will also be given to benefit/cost methodology (e.g., Caltrans’ standard split for personal and business travel vs. adjustments, if any.

Provide a Traffic Forecasting and Operations Assessment Methodology and Assumptions Memorandum per Caltrans requirements.

Provide a Traffic Forecasting Volumes Report that support the opening and future year analysis in the TAR and Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR). The Traffic Volumes Report will be submitted to Caltrans for approval prior to preparation of the TAR and TOAR.

The following tasks will be conducted as part of the Traffic Volumes Report:
o Data collection
o RIVCOM Travel Demand Model refinement
o Existing traffic volumes
o Opening year traffic volumes
o Design year traffic volumes
The limits for the TOAR study area are as follows:
o Intersections:
 Hargrave Street/Ramsey Street
 Hargrave Street/I-10 Westbound Ramps
 Hargrave Street/I-10 Eastbound Ramps
 Hargrave Street/Lincoln Street
o There will be no freeway analysis since the project does not propose improvements on I-10 or the way in which the ramps at Hargrave Street connect to the freeway. In addition, there will be no changes in traffic demand between nobuild and build conditions.

Deliverables:
• Traffic Forecasting Volumes Report
• Traffic Operations Analysis Report

3. BASIS OF DESIGN DOCUMENT
The FRA grant requires the preparation of a Basis of Design document prior to initialization of the Preliminary Engineering Design per Task 3.1 Pre-Design Activities of the FRA agreement with the City of Banning.

Consultant shall prepare a Design Basis Memorandum indicating the applicable design standards for various items of work for the approved project concept. Plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with current AASHTO and Caltrans' regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards. Improvements of local roads may be prepared in accordance with City standards in lieu of Caltrans standards as directed by the City. All documents shall be prepared using US standards and dimensions. Compliance with AREMA, EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 16
428
UPRR Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects and/or County or City Standards shall also be required, as appropriate.

Consultant shall prepare the Basis of Design Document based upon the research items in Section 2. Data Collection section of this Scope of Work. The Basis of Design shall be accepted by all project stakeholders prior to initiation of Concept Development and Project Approvals.

In the event that non-standard features become apparent during the initial design, the Consultant shall prepare the necessary design exceptions following Caltrans or UPRR and the respective city's guidelines.

Deliverables:
• Design Basis Memorandum

4. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT APPROVAL
This task involves the development of the roadway and railroad track bridge geometrics to more accurately define project limits, right-of-way needs, and cost, among other items. It is assumed that City Council will approve the concept, permitting the project to move into the Plans, Specifications & Estimates task.

4.1. GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS
The consultant shall develop one conceptual exhibit of the roadway geometrics between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street including the railroad overpass bridge for visual purposes.

Geometric Approval Drawing (Optional)
o Caltrans District 8 requires a separate GAD for improvements within Caltrans right-of-way as part of the PS&E approval process, which was not listed in the base scope of services and has been added as an optional task. The Consultant will prepare a GAD for project improvements in Caltrans right-of-way, which entails typical sections, horizontal roadway geometry and data tables, pavement delineation and lane dimensions, intersection traffic volumes, roadway design designation, and non-standard design features.

Deliverables:
• One conceptual exhibit (Plan View)
• Geometric Approval Drawing

4.2. BRIDGE AND RETAINING WALL CONCEPTS
Consultant shall develop preliminary structural design and layout to assess feasibility of different bridge types.

Prepare Advance Planning Studies (APS) for the I-10 Hargrave Undercrossing retaining wall that will be necessary to support the existing bridge abutments and for the proposed Hargrave Street Underpass that will carry the UPRR railroad over Hargrave Street. These will follow the guidelines of Caltrans Memo to Designers (MTD), Section 1-8 “Planning Studies”, and Caltrans EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 17
429
Office of Special Funded Projects (OSFP) Information and Procedures Guide, Section 3-2 “Advance Planning Studies.”
The purpose of an APS is to identify feasible types of structures and construction techniques for the project location. The APS will include cost, project risks, and potential impacts to surrounding environment and existing facilities and utilities. It will investigate the use of Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) techniques and their potential benefits to both cost and schedule. The APS will encompass the following:
• General Plan of the structure, which will include a Plan View, Elevation View, and Typical Section of the structure.
• Preliminary Foundation Report
• APS Checklist.
• Design memo discussing the suitable structure types and its benefits and challenges for each
• Itemized Cost Estimate
Deliverables:
• I-10 Hargrave Street undercrossing retaining wall APS • Hargrave Street underpass bridge APS

4.3. PROJECT CONCEPT REPORT
A Project Concept Report will be prepared. This report will include roadway, right-of-way, utility, and structure exhibits.

Plan and Profile Exhibits
Plan and profile exhibits will be prepared for Hargrave Street and UPRR tracks bridge.

A review of the plan view exhibit is anticipated with City staff and then one meeting with Caltrans and UPRR for input. Input from the meeting will be incorporated and redistributed via pdf files.

Deliverables:
• Plan and Profile Exhibits (to be included in the Project Concept Report) Right-of-Way Exhibits
Preliminary right-of-way exhibits shall be prepared depicting preliminary right-of-way needs for the Project.

Deliverables:
• Right-of-Way Exhibits (to be included in the Project Concept Report) EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 18
430
Utility Exhibits
Utility exhibits shall be prepared depicting existing utilities and conceptual relocation routes.

Deliverables:
• Utility Exhibits (to be included in the Project Concept Report) Structure Exhibits
Consultant shall further define the bridge concept and shall prepare a plan exhibit depicting approximate type and length of retaining walls.

Structure exhibits shall include a plan, section, and elevation for the UPRR Tracks Overpass and a plan view depicting type and length of retaining walls.

Deliverables:
• Bridge and Retaining Wall Exhibits (to be included in the Project Concept Report)
Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Consultant shall prepare a Preliminary Geotechnical Report for the project to provide preliminary geotechnical information for the Project Concept Report and Type Selection process. This report will be prepared using the available subsurface data.

Deliverables:
• Preliminary Geotechnical Report (to be included in the Project Concept Report)
Preliminary Traffic Analysis Report
The Traffic Analysis Report prepared under Task 2.7 shall be included as part of the Project Concept Report.

Deliverables:
• Preliminary Traffic Analysis Report (to be included in the Project Concept Report)
Construction Cost Estimates
A rough order of magnitude costs shall be prepared based on the exhibits listed above to refine the project costs.

Deliverables:
• Construction Cost Estimates (to be included in the Project Concept Report) Right-of-Way Cost Estimates
Rough order of magnitude right-of-way cost estimates shall be prepared based on the rightof-way exhibit to refine the project costs.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 19
431
Deliverables:
• Right-of-Way Cost Estimates (to be included in the Project Concept Report)
Project Concept Report
The Project Concept Report shall include the exhibits, reports, and cost estimates included above. This report shall be submitted to the City for review. It is assumed that this report will be presented to City Council for approval.

Deliverables:
• Draft Project Concept Report
• Final Project Concept Report

4.4. PROJECT CONCEPT APPROVAL
The City shall present the Project Concept Report to the City Council. Consultant shall support the City at City Council meeting. City Council approval is anticipated prior to Environmental Technical Studies and proceeding with Plans, Specifications & Estimates.

Consultant shall organize meetings with Caltrans and UPRR to review the project concept report. Key functional units, such as geometrician shall be in attendance. Consultant shall present proposed concept and obtain confirmation that Caltrans and UPRR have no objection to the proposed concept.

Deliverables:
• Meeting handouts and minutes

5. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Consultant will prepare a thorough project description defining the limits of project-related activities, which will be used as the basis for environmental technical studies conducted for this project. Pursuant to section 21080.13 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(g), the state legislature has determined that railroad grade separations shall be statutorily exempt from CEQA documentation and public disclosure requirements. Accordingly, a more formal CEQA environmental document is not required for this project. However, in certain instances and at the discretion of the sponsoring agency, it is sometimes prudent to undertake certain limited environmental studies in order to better understand and manage the consequences of a particular proposed railroad grade separation.

Such is the case for the Project, for which the City and Caltrans have determined that certain selected studies should be undertaken.

5.1. CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION
Consultant shall prepare a Notice of Exemption (NOE) and provide it to the City for approval and submittal to the County of Riverside for recordation and State Clearinghouse. • Statutory Exemption Memorandum (Optional)
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 20
432
The project involves the construction of a railroad grade separation, which is Statutorily Exempt (SE) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(g) and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.13. The consultant will assist the City of Banning in preparing the Notice of Exemption (NOE) and supporting memorandum for a Statutory Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(g) and PRC 21080.13 for the project. The form and memorandum will be provided to the City for one round of review (each). The consultant team will assist the City by filing the NOE with the California State Clearinghouse. The City is responsible for filing the NOE with the County Clerk and paying the associated filing fee.

Deliverables:
• CEQA Notice of Exemption
• Memorandum to support Statutory Exemption (one electronic copy)

5.2. NEPA
The Project will receive federal funds and therefore NEPA compliance is required, and Caltrans Local Assistance involvement is anticipated. Unless otherwise specified, scope of work tasks will be completed by Consultant's staff. Consultant shall develop Project Vicinity and Project Location Maps, as well as a set of maps that clearly shows the location and features of the design under consideration. Additionally, base mapping of the environmental components/data including hazardous materials sites, and land uses and right-of-way sites. Data from publicly available sources will be used and adjusted, where appropriate, based on field surveys and observations conducted by the Consultant.

The following list includes the studies that may be included in this scope:
• Traffic Study
• Cultural Resources
• Biological
• Air Quality
• Noise Study
• Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Hazardous Materials)  Traffic Study
o Traffic Forecasting and Operations Assessment Methodology and Assumptions Memorandum:
o A Memorandum will be prepared to describe the methodology and approach for the traffic forecasting and traffic operations assessment for preparation of the Traffic Volumes Report, Traffic Study Report (TSR), TOAR and Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE). The Memorandum ensures the Traffic Volumes Report, TSR, TOAR and ICE will be completed according to the current Caltrans and City of Banning traffic analysis protocols for traffic studies and methodologies. As such, traffic volumes will be prepared consistent with the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 7 (2014 CA MUTCD, Rev 7), Caltrans’ EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 21
433
Traffic Signal Operations Manual, Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), Caltrans' Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) 21-14, along with the Caltrans’ Engineering, Operational, and Safety Analysis (EOSA) Guidance for Interstate Access Control Modifications (November 2021), and the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Local Transportation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (TIA Guidelines), dated October 2021. o The Memorandum will summarize the following assumptions for preparation of the Traffic Volumes Report and traffic study:
 Identification of the study area
 Analysis scenarios to be analyzed
 Volume development methodology
 Performance methodology and criteria
It is anticipated that the following analysis scenarios would need to be included in the analysis:
 Existing conditions
 Opening Year No Build Alternative conditions
 Opening Year with Build Alternative conditions (up to one design alternative)
 Design Year No Build Alternative conditions
 Design Year with Build Alternative conditions (up to one design alternative) o Identification of the Study Area
Based on the project understanding, the study area for the TSR shall include up to six intersections and five roadway segments along Hargrave Street between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street. Additionally, the analysis will include evaluation of the Hargrave Street widening from two-lane undivided to four-lane divided between the I-10 eastbound ramps to Lincoln Street. It should be noted that the ultimate buildout of Hargrave Street will consist of six traffic lanes. However, this ultimate six-lane widening is considered a separate project in which the planned construction is currently unprogrammed/unknown and will also require reconstruction of the existing I-10 freeway overcrossing at Hargrave Street.

However, as previously mentioned, the TOAR study area may need to examine traffic and operational analyses for the Hargrave Street interchange, as well as the adjacent interchanges. As such, traffic volumes will need to be developed for intersections and roadway segments at the adjacent I-10/8th Street interchange to the west and I-10/Ramsey Street interchange to the east. Additionally, traffic volumes for the freeway segments along the I-10 throughout the three interchanges will need to be developed. The final study area for the TOAR will be determined in consultation with project staff, City staff, and Caltrans staff. o Draft/Final Memorandum
The consultant team will prepare a draft Traffic Forecasting and Operations Assessment
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 22
434
Methodology and Assumptions Memorandum. The draft memorandum will be submitted to Caltrans staff as an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) file for review.

Deliverables:
• Traffic Forecasting and Operations Assessment Methodology and Assumptions Memorandum [Draft and Final]
o Caltrans Traffic Reports
Traffic Volumes Report
The Traffic Volumes Report for the proposed project will be prepared based on methodologies outlined and approved in the Memorandum. The Consultant team will develop traffic volumes that will be included in the Traffic Volumes Report and submit the volumes to Caltrans for approval prior to preparation of the TSR and TOAR. It needs to be noted that the Traffic Volumes Report is also used for preparation of the air quality and noise analyses. The traffic, air quality, and noise analyses use different systems for categorizing vehicles. Traffic analyses categorize vehicles based on the number of axles. The air quality analysis is based on vehicle weight, while the noise analysis is based on the number of tires.

The project team will utilize a correspondence table to convert the traffic forecasts from the Riverside County Model (RIVCOM), which uses the four-class system, into the eight-class system used for air quality analysis and the five-class system used for noise analysis based on recent experience working with Caltrans.

Additionally, Caltrans may require collection of traffic counts Average Daily Trips (ADT)/Peak Hour by vehicle type and axle within the vicinity of Hargrave interchange for traffic index calculations. However, this is unknown at this time and volume development for this analysis has not been included as part of this scope of work.

The following tasks will be conducted as part of the Traffic Volumes Report:
o Data Collection
The following data will be required to prepare the traffic analysis for the proposed project:

Existing Counts. The Consultant team will contract with a qualified data collection company to obtain existing peak hour and roadway segment counts for areas identified in the TOAR and TSR. Based on prior experiences on similar projects, Caltrans may request for two days of 24-hour intersection turn volumes for study intersections. Freeway segment data will be collected from Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data source or other approved sources.

Information on Cumulative Projects. Information about major approved or pending cumulative projects will be gathered from the City’s Planning Division and the adjacent jurisdictions of County of Riverside and City of Beaumont so that traffic EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 23
435
generated by those projects may be incorporated into the TSR and TOAR. The socioeconomic data in the Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) will be reviewed to ensure that applicable cumulative projects are included in the forecast scenario of the model. Major development projects to be included are the remaining unbuilt portions of the Sundance Specific Plan, Butterfield Specific Plan, Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan, Rancho San Gorgonio Specific Plan, Banning Municipal Airport redevelopment, and applicable projects within County of Riverside and City of Beaumont.
o RIVCOM Travel Demand Model Refinement
For purposes of this analysis, the RIVCOM will be utilized for developing forecast traffic volumes. As previously referenced, it should be noted that the adjacent vicinities of County of Riverside and City of Beaumont has many future development projects and roadway circulation network improvements (e.g., I-10 Bypass) that are currently either under planning or to be constructed prior tproject opening year. Based on prior experience on other projects within the City, the following would need to be included for analysis:

Cumulative Projects: The model’s socioeconomic data under the future scenario will be evaluated to ensure that all cumulative projects are appropriately included in the model. Based on our experience using RIVCOM, the model doesn’t include full build-out of majority of projects in Riverside County. The model would need to be updated to appropriately include the socio-economic data for such projects prior to developing forecast traffic volumes for this analysis.

I-10 Bypass: Banning to Cabazon Project: The project team had previously worked on the traffic analyses for the I-10 Bypass – Banning to Cabazon project.

This project is located east of the City of Banning. There is currently no local roadway that connects the City of Banning to the unincorporated community of Cabazon to the east except for the I-10. The I-10 Bypass project will construct a new local roadway to connect Banning and Cabazon to provide an alternative route between the two jurisdictions.

City of Banning Update of Traffic Fee Component of the Development Fee Program: The consultant team had previously prepared the update to the traffic fee component of the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. The fee program examined intersection operations and recommended planned capacity and signalization improvements for build-out of the General Plan. Consultant had previously examined the Hargrave Street corridor as part of the fee program update.

The consultant team will discuss with Caltrans and City staff to confirm the updates required in RIVCOM within the project study area to ensure all projects and roadway circulation improvements are included in the future analysis scenarios.
o Existing Traffic Volumes
As previously described, existing traffic volumes will be developed using existing peak hour intersection turn volumes for study intersections and daily traffic EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 24
436
volumes for roadway segments. Freeway segment volumes will be developed using PeMS data.

The methodology of developing existing traffic volumes will be finalized in consultation with Caltrans and City staff in the memo.
o Opening Year Traffic Volumes
The consultant team will develop opening year traffic volumes for intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments identified for analysis. It is anticipated that the opening year volumes will be developed based on forecast data obtained from updated RIVCOM and in consultation with Caltrans. The methodology of developing opening year traffic volumes will be finalized in consultation with Caltrans in the memo.

Design Year Traffic Volumes
The consultant team will develop design year traffic volumes for intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments identified for analysis. It is anticipated that the design year volumes will be developed based on forecast data obtained from updated RIVCOM and in consultation with Caltrans. Design year volumes for intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments will be developed by post-processing base year and future year traffic model volumes obtained from RIVCOM. Design year volumes will be developed by applying the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
procedures to obtain post-processed traffic volumes from the model. The methodology of developing design year traffic volumes will be finalized in consultation with Caltrans in the memo.
o Draft/Final Traffic Volumes Report
The consultant team will prepare traffic volume summary tables and figures along with a volume development report for both the TSR and TOAR. The draft traffic volume report will be submitted to Caltrans and the City as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file for review. The consultant team will address up to one round of comments from Caltrans and City for finalizing the Traffic Volume Report. Upon addressing comments, the final Traffic Volume Report will be submitted to Caltrans for approval.

Deliverables: Traffic Volumes Report [Draft and Final]
o Cultural Resources
Prepare an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), an Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) for the proposed undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The reports will be completed pursuant to Caltrans guidelines and formats. All efforts will be completed by, or under the supervision of, cultural resources management professionals that meet Secretary of the Interior and Caltrans Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) for Archaeology and Architectural History. Efforts completed for this task are outlined
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 25
437
below:

Area of Potential Effect Delineation: Cultural resources management staff will develop an Area of Potential Effect (APE) Map and submit to Caltrans for review.

For the purposes of this scope, the APE is generally defined as Hargrave St. and the associated ROW between Lincoln St. and Ramsey St., as well as the on/offramps and John Street between Florida Street and Hargrave Street and the shoofly limits within UPRR right-of-way as described herein. This scope includes up to two updates to the APE Map based upon Caltrans comments.

Research: As the cultural resources records for Riverside County are not currently available due to the closure of the Eastern Information Center (EIC) and as no updates have been provided by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) as to when they will become available at a new location, this scope does not include a record search within the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). However, cultural resources management staff will submit a records search request for the approved APE to Caltrans and the City of Banning to obtain any cultural resources records the agencies may have on file.

Staff will additionally review applicable databases, such as the NRHP, CRHR, BERD, etc., to identify any listed cultural resources located within the APE plus a

0.5-mile buffer. Staff will further research geomorphology and land use history through resources such as historic aerials and topographic maps.

Outreach: Cultural resources management staff will request a tribal consultation list and records search of Sacred Lands Files (SLF) through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the APE. Staff will contact the Native American Tribes listed on the NAHC’s consultation list to request any information about cultural resources or sacred sites in or near the APE. Outreach will include one initial correspondence and up to one additional follow-up correspondence to the Tribes on the contact list. Staff will also contact up to two historical organizations or societies as part of the outreach effort for the ASR. Any additional outreach effort required by Caltrans will require an adjusted scope and fee.

Field Survey: Staff will conduct a pedestrian survey of the entirety of the APE.

Survey methods will be non-collective, and all identified cultural resources will be recorded utilizing CA DPR 523 series forms. This scope also accounts for the evaluation of recorded historic resources for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Reports: Upon conclusion of all research, outreach, and field survey efforts, an ASR, HRER, and HSPR will be produced that will follow Caltrans formats and guidelines.

Exclusions
• Due to the built environment of the project area, it is assumed that neither Extended Phase I Report (XPIR) nor an Archaeological Evaluation Report (AER) will be necessary and, therefore, not included in this scope • This scope does not include any effort related to consultation with the State Historic
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 26
438
Preservation Officer (SHPO)
• This scope does not include any effort related to formal consultation with Native American Tribes. All outreach to Tribes outlined in the scope is for the purposes of gathering information for the report and does not constitute consultation required under AB52 (CEQA, as amended) or Section 106 of the NHPA
Deliverables:
• Area of Potential Effect Map
• Archaeological Survey Report
• Historical Resources Evaluation Report
• Historic Property Survey Report
o Biological
• Natural Environmental Study (Minimal Impacts) (NES-MI) The consultant team will prepare a Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) (NES-MI in accordance with the Caltrans Environmental Handbook, Volume 3.

The NES-MI will document and evaluate the natural habitat and other land cover types in the project area and determine whether the proposed project would result in impacts to special-status species/habitat. The NES-MI will be prepared using the Caltrans prescribed format available on the Standard Environmental Reference (SER) website (August 12, 2022). If species have the potential to occur, a Biological Assessment (BA) report would be required; however, listed special-status species or their habitats are not expected to occur in the project area and are therefore excluded from this scope.

In order to determine the likelihood of special-status species occurrence on site, our team will conduct a literature search of publicly available biological resources lists and maps (e.g., the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database). Our team biologists will also utilize their knowledge of southern California biological resources to determine the likelihood of any special-status species occurrence on site. If necessary and upon Caltrans request, we will prepare a formal inquiry letter for Caltrans to submit to the USFWS and the CDFW requesting identification of any State or federally listed species potentially occurring in the area.

Following the literature review, our team biologists will perform reconnaissancelevel field surveys of the Biological Study Area to assess plant and wildlife habitats and to document existing conditions (including vegetation mapping and photographs). Two field visits by two biologists are assumed for this effort.

The consultant team will identify applicable permits necessary for implementation of the construction phase of the project. Coordination with the resource agencies EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 27
439
(i.e. USFWS, CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]), may be necessary and would be conducted in coordination with and under the guidance of Caltrans. Many cities and counties in California have tree preservation ordinances and local land use policies with which transportation agencies and their agents must comply.

Focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) are not anticipated to be required due to the condition of the project site based on a preliminary evaluation of aerial imagery and are not included in this scope of work. o Jurisdictional Delineation (JD)
The consultant team will conduct a routine wetland delineation and areas of potential jurisdiction will be evaluated according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Environmental Laboratory 2008), and State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Water Resources Control Board 2019). The jurisdictional limit of non-wetland waters will be identified following the procedures set forth in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3(e) and applicable resource agency guidelines. Further, the extent of any streambed and associated riparian areas subject to review by the CDFW under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code will be determined. The jurisdictional delineation will be conducted simultaneously with the reconnaissance-level field survey required for the NES-MI. Our team will prepare a Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (PJD) memo that will include an analysis of wetland features within the project boundary. This preliminary analysis will help determine whether there are USACE jurisdictional waters as early in the project review process as possible. The memo will be submitted directly to the City, will be informative in nature and is not anticipated to have comments or require revisions. The full results of the delineation will be presented in a Jurisdictional Delineation report that will include mapping of any wetland and jurisdictional areas. This report will define the project constraints associated with non-wetland waters, wetlands, and riparian habitat. The jurisdictional delineation report will be an attachment to the NES-MI. The results of the determination are subject to verification by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. We have included up to four hours of coordination with the resource agencies and City regarding the jurisdictional status of delineated features.
o Bat Habitat Assessment
A bat habitat assessment will be conducted within the project area to determine whether suitable trees or other roosting habitat for bats occur. If suitable roosting habitat is present within the project area and is anticipated to be impacted, this scope does not include the effort to cover the additional effort for nighttime bat surveys.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 28
440
A Bat Habitat Assessment Report will be prepared following completion of the habitat assessment. The report will document the results of the habitat assessment. The locations of suitable trees or other roosting habitat and confirmed bat roosts, if present, will be clearly shown in map figures included with the report. The report will also provide recommendations for appropriate site- and species-specific avoidance and minimization strategies. One round of consolidated City review and comment is assumed for the Bat Habitat Assessment Report. The Bat Habitat Assessment Survey Report will be an attachment to the NES-MI. If focused surveys during maternity nesting season are required, a scope and budget adjustment would be required. o MSHCP Consistency Analysis
The following details the scope required to conduct a NES-MI and MSHCP consistency analysis. Additional species and biological resources surveys will be recommended if site conditions warrant and regulatory requirements mandate.

We will conduct a literature review to identify sensitive species known or reported to occur within the project area. The literature review will include the California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory, and MSHCP documents. Our team biologist familiar with the habitats and sensitive resources of the region will conduct a general on-site field survey.

Additionally, a qualified biologist will conduct a habitat assessment for sensitive fairy shrimp. Based on the literature review and field survey, an assessment of the potential habitat value for survey species identified in the MSHCP and identification of any additional focused species surveys that may be necessary (including burrowing owl, narrow endemic plants, etc.). The Consistency Report will include discussion of: 1) the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, waters of the U.S., or streambeds/habitats as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), respectively: 2) results of any focused surveys, if needed; 3) project consistency with the conservation objectives of the MSHCP and recommendations of measures to achieve consistency, as necessary; and 3) impacts to sensitive biological resources, graphics, and maps as needed to show the project location and vicinity, the project relationship to designated critical habitat areas, and the project relationship to NEPA for any biological resources or habitat areas on the site that may require additional study for CEQA review or for compliance with the MSHCP.

The report will be submitted electronically. Upon review/revision, we will submit a PDF of the final report. The PDF will include all text, graphics, and supporting appendices. If requested, hard copies may be provided on a time-and-materials basis. A copy of the NES-MI (and associated JD/Bat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis) will be sent to the City (MSHCP-permittee) as required under the MSHCP.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 29
441
o Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report (Optional)
The MSHCP requires preparation of a DBESP when Riverine/riparian resources, burrowing owl, or NEPSSA plants, and some other MSHCP-covered resources, are found to be present on site and would be impacted by the project. Based on initial review and potential for diversion of flows west of Hargrave Street, the proposed project may impact riverine/riparian resources as the feature present is assumed to also be jurisdictional by CDFW. If based on the field surveys that the sensitive resources described above or any other MSHCP-covered resources are identified onsite and will be impacted, a DBESP will be prepared consistent with the April 2023 template using the surveys, hydrology, drainage water quality and other technical information and reporting prepared as part of this scope of work and submit to the City for review and comment. Once comments have been addressed and revisions approved by the City, the City will submit the DBESP to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), for agency review. The DBESP would be reviewed by the CDFW and USFWS during a 60- day review and response period. Upon receipt of comments, we will revise the draft DBESP and submit a final DBESP to the City for submittal to CDFW and USFWS. If further technical analysis is required by the agencies for inclusion in the DBESP, beyond that identified in this scope of work, amendment to this scope would be required. Also, under the MSCHP, impacts to resources maybe be achieved through one of the following mechanisms: 1) use of credits in an approved mitigation bank; 2) on-site mitigation or 3) off-site mitigation at an approved site. It is assumed that credits at an approved mitigation bank will be utilized for this project. Coordination and negotiation with mitigation banks, and identification and assessment of on- or off-site mitigation locations, are not included in this scope and would require an amendment. No additional MSHCPrelated services are provided with the scope and cost included in this proposal (i.e. Joint Project Review).
o Focused Burrowing Owl Survey (Optional)
The project site lies near an MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. If the project limits include the burrowing owl survey area and if suitable habitat is present, a qualified biologist will conduct a focused survey in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the MSHCP. A burrow survey will be conducted during the burrowing owl breeding season (March 1 through August 31) in search of natural burrows or suitable man-made structures within the project site and a 500- foot buffer around the site (collectively referred to as the “study area”).

If potential owl burrows (natural or man-made) are found, or if owls are observed during the burrow survey, then we will conduct four additional site visits on separate days, either in the morning, one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise, or in the early evening, two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset.

The locations of all
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 30
442
suitable burrowing owl habitat, potential owl burrows, burrowing owl sign, and any owls or sign observed will be recorded with a Global Positioning System device.

A focused burrowing owl survey is required for all sites with suitable burrowing owl habitat within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities, whether initial survey results are positive or negative. If survey results are positive, additional follow-up surveys, avoidance, or relocation of owls in coordination with the CDFW, or monitoring may be required. In the event that it is determined that burrowing owls occupy the project site, prior to any on-site development, and are anticipated to be impacted, the City shall document proposed impacts and suitable compensatory mitigation, if required, to the RCA, CDFW and USFWS in a DBESP.

The consultant team will prepare and submit a letter report to the City in electronic format describing the survey methodologies and results of the focused burrowing owl survey. One round of consolidated review and comment is assumed for the focused burrowing owl survey report. A copy of the report will be sent to the Western Riverside County MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program by the City as required under the MSHCP. The report will be included as an attachment to the NES-MI.
• Burrowing owl surveys can last anywhere from one to five months during the survey season but are recommended to be conducted evenly throughout the survey season if possible, to eliminate the probability that late and/or early season owls are not detected.
• This task and budget does not include the additional pre-construction survey or relocation services.
o Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) Survey (Optional) The project site lies near a NEPSSA study area for Marvin’s onion (Allium marvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). Should the project limits include NEPSSA survey area and if suitable habitat is present, a qualified biologist will conduct two focused surveys in May/June 2025 and June/July 2025 to determine if any of the NEPSSA plants are present.

The objective of the survey will be to determine presence or absence of the target species and, if present, to quantify and map the distribution of the species on the project site. All plant species detected on the site during the survey will be identified to the extent necessary to determine rarity and listing status. The survey will consist of two site visits spanning the peak flowering season of the target species. These surveys must be conducted during this timeframe to avoid agency scrutiny. Surveys conducted outside of this time period may be rejected by the resource agencies (CDFW, USFWS, and/or Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority [RCA]), and additional surveys during the appropriate time period may be required by the resource agencies.

The consultant team will prepare a letter report describing the survey methodologies and results of the focused NEPSSA surveys to be submitted to the City. One round of consolidated review and comment is assumed for the focused NEPSSA survey report. A copy of the report will be sent to the MSHCP Biological EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 31
443
Monitoring Program by the City as required under the MSHCP. The report will be included as an attachment to the NES-MI.

Deliverables:
• NES-MI [Draft and Final]
• JD [Draft and Final]
• Bat Habitat Assessment [Draft and Final]
• MSHCP Consistency Analysis [Draft and Final]
• DBESP Report [Draft and Final] (Optional)
• Focused Burrowing Owl Survey (Optional)
• NEPSSA Focused Survey (Optional)
o Air Quality
Develop a work plan explaining the assumptions and methodology for the Air Quality Report to Caltrans Staff for review and approval prior to beginning the development of the report. The work plan will outline the construction, traffic data, and modeling assumptions.
• Deliverables: Air Quality Report Work Plan (pdf)
The Air Quality Report will be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 11 (Air Quality) and the annotated outline. The Air Quality Report will address requirements under transportation conformity, NEPA, and CEQA criteria. The technical report will include the following discussions and analyses:
• Setting. The analysis will include discussions of the affected environment including meteorology/climate of the project area; existing air quality conditions; federal, state, and local air quality rules and regulations; and approved air quality plans.
• Transportation Conformity. The project area is in nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5. Transportation conformity requirements will be identified and evaluated for the project. Transportation conformity will be at regional and project levels:

Regional Conformity. Regional conformity of the project will be demonstrated by the project inclusion in the latest conforming regional transportation plan (RTP) and the federal transportation improvement program (FTIP). This includes coordination with City, County, and Caltrans regarding project inclusion in the latest transportation plans and programs.

Project Level Conformity (CO Hot Spot Analysis). The carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot analysis will be based on the CO protocol developed by UC Davis.

Project Level Conformity (Particulate Matter Hot Spot Analysis). The project is exempt from project-level conformity under 40 CFR 93.126 (Railroad/Highway Crossing). Therefore, the analysis will document this exemption and explain that the project is a grade separation that does not EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 32
444
change the number of through lanes and does not change the channelization or signalization status of intersections. • Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and impacts from the project would be evaluated following the current Federal and State guidance. The effects of transportation control measures in reducing project emissions will be described. • Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT). MSAT analysis will be performed following the FHWA Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (January 2023).
• Short-Term Construction Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts due to short-term project construction activities will be evaluated. Project construction emissions will be quantified based on project construction information using agency approved emission calculation tools. The analysis will also identify appropriate control measures to minimize construction emissions.

Deliverables: Air Quality Report (pdf)
o Noise Study
Noise Study Report Work Plan: develop a work plan explaining the assumptions and methodology for the Noise Study Report to Caltrans Staff for review and approval prior to beginning the development of the report.

The work plan will outline the noise measurement locations and modeling assumptions, including receiver locations and hourly traffic volume assumptions.

Deliverables: Noise Study Report Work Plan (pdf)
Noise Study Report: A traffic noise study will be conducted in accordance with the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol developed by Caltrans to produce a Noise Study Report. The protocol requires identification of noise impacts at different types of activity areas affected by the project. The noise study will address both the State and Federal noise abatement criteria (NAC) to support the NEPA CE. The following tasks will be conducted to prepare the noise study:
• Identify Potential Sensitive Receptors. Based on aerial images and a field visit, potential sensitive receptors for noise impacts will be identified and mapped.
• Measure Existing Noise Levels. Existing noise levels will be measured at representative receiver locations within the study area to quantify existing worst-hour noise levels and to provide data for model calibration purposes. The field work plan and methodology memo will be provided to the City and Caltrans approval prior to EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 33
445
the collection of noise measurements. Within the noise study area, consultant will perform concurrent directional traffic counts by vehicle classification and determine speeds of all major roads during on-site short-term noise monitoring and collect one shortterm (15 minute) noise measurements at six locations. Traffic noise will be modeled using TNM 2.5, as currently required per Caltrans’ Standard Environmental Reference (SER) and FHWA guidance. • Model Future Noise Levels. Modeling is required to calculate noise levels throughout the project corridor using FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM) would be used to calculate existing noise levels and predict future noise levels with and without the project. The model will be calibrated to the measured noise and traffic conditions and then used to predict existing and future noise levels. Traffic noise modeling will be conducted in accordance with the Caltrans recommended procedures. Traffic noise will be modeled using TNM 2.5, as currently required per Caltrans’ SER and FHWA guidance. It should be noted that TNM 3.0 may be required at the time of the noise analysis, and as such would be used by the project team.
• Construction Noise. Construction noise will be predicted using methods outlined in the protocol that utilize the Roadway Construction Noise Model. This task assumes that the Noise Study Report will not identify reasonable or feasible noise abatement and that a Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) will not be necessary.

Deliverables: Noise Study Report (pdf)
• Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Hazardous
Materials)
The Initial Site Assessment (ISA) scope of services described in this task addresses the due diligence procedures and methodology presented in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Method E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments and Chapter 18 of the California Department of Transportation (The Department) document titled Project Development Procedures Manual (1999). The Project Development Procedures Manual states that “every project that includes excavation, structure demolition or modification, or the purchase of new right-of-way, will require an ISA to determine if known or potential hazardous waste is present within the project limits”.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 34
446
The Caltrans Handbook refers to conducting hazardous materials assessments consistent with ASTM 1527-21. This scope limits the Subject Property to Hargrave Street between Lincoln Street and Ramsey Street including the adjacent frontage properties, all four I-10 Interchange ramps up to the freeway gore areas, along the UPRR right-of-way between San Gorgonio Avenue and
approximately 4,500 linear feet east of Hargrave Street. • The ISA provides the following:
o An identification of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
o An opinion of the impacts on the property resulting from conditions identified during the investigation, by a qualified Environmental Professional (EP)
o An opinion, by a qualified EP, on the need for additional investigations
o A statement consistent with ASTM E 1527-21, 12.13, on the qualifications of the EP and the suitability of the ISA to meet the requirements of The All Appropriate Inquiry Rule, CFR 40 312. • The assessments will reflect the general national standard of practice and the local customary practice as understood by the EP.

The EP will use ASTM 1527-21 along with our judgment and experience when reviewing results of the assessment and in identifying findings and RECs.
• Findings relative to potential hazardous waste facilities within and adjacent to the project boundaries will be summarized in the final ISA report. The following tasks refer to only that information that is defined as reasonably ascertainable.
o Records Review: This task will generally consist of an environmental database record search, aerial photograph review, and review of historical maps and sources.
o Site Reconnaissance: Conduct a site reconnaissance at the subject property consistent with ASTM E 1527-21,
Section 9. The site reconnaissance will be non-invasive.We will not collect or analyze any samples. We assume that we will be allowed appropriate access to areas of the site and that the site reconnaissance shall be conducted as a single event. Should an additional site reconnaissance be
required due to access limitations, the additional site reconnaissance shall be considered additional services. o Interviews: Consistent with ASTM E 1527-21, the
consultant team will make a reasonable attempt to conduct interviews with current and past property owners,
neighboring property owners in the case of abandoned
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 35
447
properties, or local agency representatives with knowledge of the project area.
• ISA Report Preparation: Prepare a summary report for the subject property. The report will be formatted consistent with Appendix X4 of ASTM E 1527-21. The report will include conclusions and recommendations based on the findings of the ISA. The Caltrans ISA Checklist will be completed and included with the final report. • Since results of the ISA are unknown, hazardous materials testing is excluded from this scope of services, with the exception of ADL, which is included as optional.
• Community Impacts (Optional)

• A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) will be prepared, consistent with the guidelines in the FHWATechnical Advisory T6640.8A, Caltrans CIA Handbook (October 2011), Caltrans CIA template (2024) and other applicable guidance from the FHWA and the Caltrans SER Web sites. The consultant team reviewed the Caltrans SER and determined that a mid-level CIA would be appropriate for this project.

This was determined because of the likelihood of property acquisitions to accommodate for the widening of Hargrave Street. The CIA is anticipated to focus on land use impacts, consistency with applicable State, Regional, and Local Plans, community character and cohesion, relocations and real property acquisition, traffic and
transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities, utilities, emergency services, and public involvement. The CIA will provide a description of existing, adopted, and proposed land uses on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, including employment and activity centers.

The CIA will also address the proposed project’s consistency with relevant local, regional, and State regulations and land use, transportation, and air quality plans. Housing, employment, and population conditions, as well as the locations of important community facilities in the vicinity of the project site will be described. Relevant demographic and land use information for the project study area will be mapped. The project may require parcel acquisitions and relocations. An analysis of the project’s potential right-of-way impacts and associated socioeconomic impacts will be discussed in the CIA.

The CIA will also address federal environmental justice requirements and evaluate whether the project would increase/decrease transportation equity in the affected community of Banning. The project may include the closure and/or rerouting of several streets; therefore, a discussion of the project’s impacts on community access will also be provided in the CIA.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 36
448
The CIA will also provide recommendations to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the proposed project where feasible and warranted.

One round of consolidated review and comment is assumed for the Community Impact Assessment.

Deliverables: Community Impact Assessment (CIA) [Draft and Final]
• Paleontological Resources (Optional)
To address the potential for the project to impact sensitive paleontological resources per CEQA and NEPA, as well as other State and local regulations and requirements regarding paleontological resources, the consultant team will prepare a combined
Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) during PA&ED. The PIR/PER will follow the guidelines set forth by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Environmental Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 8 – Paleontology, as well as guidelines established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and industry best practices. Completion of the PIR/PER will involve the following tasks:

Background Research. The consultant team will conduct a fossil locality search through the records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC). The fossil locality search is necessary to document the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources within the project area and within the same or similar deposits as those found in the project area. This information will help determine the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered during project development. The consultant team will examine current geologic maps of the project area and review relevant geological and paleontological literature to document which geologic units are present within the project area. The literature review will provide additional information regarding the types of paleontological resources that may occur in those deposits and their scientific significance, as well as the methods necessary to mitigate any impacts to those resources. Paleontological Identification
Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report. The consultantteam will document the results of the fossil locality search through the NHMLA and the literature review in a PIR/PER. The PIR/PER will assess whether there are known or reasonably anticipated paleontological resources within the project footprint and based on the description of proposed work and excavation parameters, determine whether project excavation will impact those resources. If this research indicates EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 37
449
that significant resources may be impacted by project development, the PIR/PER will make recommendations regarding mitigation efforts and the preparation of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP). One round of consolidated review and comment is assumed for the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report.

Deliverables: PIR/PER [Draft and Final]
• Water Quality (Optional)

The consultant team will prepare a Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) for the project that follows the Caltrans December 2022 Water Quality Assessment Report Content and Recommended Format. The WQAR will discuss watershed and drainage characteristics, surface receiving waters, groundwater hydrology, regulatory requirements, pollutants of concern, receiving waters conditions, objectives, and beneficial uses, and floodplains. The report will discuss construction site, Design Pollution Prevention, and Treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are applicable to the project per Caltrans’ Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide. The WQAR will also discuss any Low Impact Development (LID) features that are included as part of the project to address water quality impacts. The project’s impacts on water quality will be evaluated and pertinent regulations and/or avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, where appropriate and necessary to prevent adverse water quality impacts, will be identified.

Information to be obtained from the Storm Water Data Report (SWDR); and Hydrology Report and incorporated into the WQAR entails proposed construction and operational BMPs, disturbed soil area, new impervious surface area, additional impervious surface areas to be treated from the project, existing and proposed drainage patterns, existing and proposed rate and volume of stormwater runoff, and proposed construction and operational BMPs. Information on depth to groundwater, proposed depth of excavation or pile installation, the potential for groundwater dewatering during construction, soil types, and erosion potential will be obtained from project Geotechnical Report. Additionally, information on riparian habitat, jurisdictional waters, and aquatic-dependent species and impacts to those biological resources will be obtained from the natural resources evaluations. One round of consolidated review and comment is assumed for the Water Quality Assessment Report.

Deliverables: Water Quality Assessment Report [Draft and Final] • Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) Investigation (Optional) EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 38
450
The consultant team will prepare a workplan and submit to Caltrans for review.

Soil Samples: Caltrans requires ADL boring interval to be 300 feet or less, and depending on the lateral distance of the excavation, more than oneline of borings is sometimes required. We assume only one line of borings is required for this project. According to the Caltrans Guidance, samples for ADL testing should be obtained from depths extending to the bottom of proposed construction excavations. Since higher ADL concentrations are usually found near the ground surface and the ADL concentration usually diminishes with depth, we are proposing a two-phase program in an attempt to reduce costs. The boring and sampling depth for the first phase will be limited to 4 feet. If soils are determined to have high levels of lead, then a second phase field sampling would be required to collect samples from greater depths (to proposed excavation depths). The scope given below is for the first phase of work only.

We will excavate no more than 8 shallow borings, within Caltrans right-ofway, to collect near-surface material samples for ADL testing. Samples will be collected from borings excavated using a 3-inch stainless steel handauger. Near-surface soil samples will be collected approximately at 0.5,

1.5, 3 and 4-footdepths from each boring.

We will forward the soil samples to a California Certified analytical laboratory for testing:
• All samples shall be tested for total lead using U.S. EPA Method 6010B,
• Samples that contain greater than or equal to 80 mg/kg of total lead shall be analyzed for soluble lead using California Waste Extraction Test (citric acid extraction) for extractable lead,
• Samples that contain greater than or equal to 5 mg/l of extractable lead using CA-WET (citric acid), shall be analyzed using DE-WET (deionized extraction) for de-ionized extractable lead, • Samples that contain greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg of total lead, or greater than or equal to 5 mg/l of extractable lead using CA-WET (citric acid) shall be analyzed using the EPA Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for leachable lead, and
• Ten percent of soil samples collected shall be analyzed using U.S.

EPA Method 9045C for pH.

Yellow Thermoplastic Traffic Stripping Samples: The yellow thermoplastic traffic striping will be sampled and tested for concentrations of lead and chromium. No more than 4 samples will be collected within Caltrans right-of-way.

The retrieved paint samples will be immediately placed in clean glass jars with teflon lids. Jars will be labeled with project information including the project name and number, sample number, location from which the sample was collected, and date and time of sampling. All samples will be entered EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 39
451
on chain-of-custodyforms and transported to a certified laboratory for testing.
• Samples shall be analyzed for total lead using U.S. EPA Method 6010B,
• Samples shall be analyzed for Chromium using U.S. EPA Method 6010B,
• Samples that contain greater than or equal to 80 mg/kg total lead shall be analyzed for soluble lead using California Waste Extraction Test (citric acid extraction) for extractable lead,
• Samples that contain greater than or equal to 50 mg/kg total chromium shall be analyzed for soluble lead using CA-WET (citric acid extraction),
• Samples that contain greater than or equal to 100 mg/kg of total lead, or greater than or equal to 5 mg/l of extractable lead using CA-WET (citric acid) shall be analyzed using the EPA Toxic characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for leachable lead, and • Samples that contain greater than or equal to 100 mg/kg of total chromium, or greater than or equal to 5 mg/l of extractable lead using CA-WET (citric acid) shall be analyzed using TCLP for leachable lead.

ADL Report: Following the ADL investigation, we will prepare a report for the project, summarizing the findings of the lead testing investigation. The report will include findings of the field sampling, results of laboratory tests and the statistical analysis, and recommendations for reuse of on-site soils excavated during construction.

Deliverables: ADL Report (pdf)

5.3. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (VIA) OPTIONAL
VIA Work Plan: Develop a work plan explaining the assumptions and methodology for the Visual Impact Assessment to Caltrans Staff for review and approval prior to beginning the development of the VIA. The work plan will outline the level of VIA recommended for the project along with a preliminary outline, number of recommended visual simulations and key viewpoints recommended.

Visual Impact Assessment: We assume a VIA Memorandum, which analyzes the changes to the visual setting and aesthetics associated with construction and implementation of the project, shall be prepared. The analysis will be performed using methods and protocol developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and adopted by the Caltrans and will utilize Caltrans’ VIA Memorandum template. The principal components of the visual setting will be inventoried and shall include: views, viewsheds, viewer groups, visual resources and EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 40
452
the quality and character of the project corridor. We will consider and identify potential visual aesthetic treatments for the project which will enhance the project will also be identified and considered. A context sensitive solution approach shall be utilized and implemented in the preparation of the VIA Document.

As part of this task, we will attend up to three (3) meetings and coordinate with the Client, consultant, Caltrans and other key team members as requested and/or reasonably required to provide recommendations.

Deliverables:
• VIA Work Plan (pdf)
• Memorandum Visual Impact Assessment Document (pdf)
Assumptions:

A Sediment Transport Study is not required.

6. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & ESTIMATES (PS&E)
This task shall include detailed engineering calculations, design, construction plans, specifications and special provisions and engineer's construction cost estimate and bid schedule for the project that will enable the City to advertise and award the construction contract for the project.

The responsible Consultant/Engineer shall sign all Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) and engineering data furnished by him/her, and where appropriate, indicate his/her California registration number. The Consultant shall prepare and furnish Special Provisions for items of work included in the plans which are not covered in the Standard Specifications, Caltrans-approved standard special provisions, and City approved standard special provisions.

Federal regulations require a Value Analysis study on all federal aided projects with a total cost (construction, right-of-way, and support) exceeding $50 million. The Hargrave Street Grade Separation will be federally funded and therefore a Value Analysis should be included in this scope.

6.1. REPORTS
Water Quality Management Plan
Consultant will prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required for urban runoff from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4 permit). The scope of the WQMP will include recommendations for post-construction permanent best management practices (BMPs), including source control (structural and non-structural) and treatment BMPs.

Recommendations for BMPs will be incorporated into the project's PS&E. This work includes documentation and incorporation of environmental requirements and mitigation measures, NPDES, temporary and permanent BMPs, air/water quality, erosion/sediment control) into the Project construction documents.

Compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit will be a dual process. Caltrans will require a Stormwater Data Report (SWDR) to comply with the MS4 EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 41
453
Permit for work within their right-of-way. For the City portion, compliance with the Whitewater River Watershed MS4, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required for Priority Development Projects. Since the grade separation project does not fit within one of the seven categories established in the guidance, a WQMP is not required; however, the MS4 Permit does require the project implement Best Management Practices to the Maximum Extent Practical (MEP), which will we document in the WQMP template format.

Assumptions :
• Consultant shall provide base Project data (areas, slopes, etc.) for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
Contractor shall be required to engage a licensed engineer to prepare the SWPPP.

Deliverables :
• Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
• Storm Water Pollution Control Plans
• Storm Water BMP Plans
• Storm Water Pollution Plan Preparation (SWPPP)
• Notice of Intent
Hydrology & Hydraulics Reports
The Hydrology and Hydraulics Report shall quantify the magnitude and frequency of design flows from adjacent areas for the Project area, as well as the peak flows and volumes attributable to the proposed improvements. It will also include a description of the proposed on-site drainage improvements and any treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into the design to satisfy National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit (MS4 Permit) requirements.

The Consultant will investigate hydrologic and hydraulic features of the site as necessary to accommodate the grade separation.

Design storm events to be analyzed are 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year storm events.

Deliverables:
• Draft Hydrology & Hydraulics Report
• Final Hydrology & Hydraulics Report
Traffic Management Plan
A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be developed with the objective of the TMP being to provide continuous traffic circulation and access, with adequate space for safe and efficient construction. The TMP will be coordinated with project stakeholders. Development of the staged construction and traffic detours, closures or alterations to traffic patterns will be EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 42
454
included.

Prepare Caltrans District 8 Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Data Sheet for Caltrans approvals. Lane closure charts for the I-10 ramps will be provided by Caltrans and incorporated into the specifications.

We assume analysis of one alternate detour route and up to 10 intersections.

Since results are unknown, design for intersection improvements is not anticipated. If design is needed, temporary design plans would be considered as additional services or be provided by the Contractor.

The TMP shall be developed according to Caltrans TMP Guidelines. TMP strategies include:
• Public Information
• Motorist Information
• Incident Management
• Construction Strategies
• Demand Management
• Alternate Routes (or Detours)
Assumptions :
• Although the TMP shall be prepared per Caltrans guidelines, it is anticipated that Caltrans review and approval of the TMP shall be limited to portions impacting their right-of-way only.

Deliverables:
• Draft Traffic Management Plan
• Final Traffic Management Plan
Geotechnical Investigations & Report
Consultant shall conduct geotechnical investigation, and shall report findings to support structures, pavement, and other portions of the Project requiring geotechnical support.

Consultant will provide geotechnical, geologic and seismic design recommendations.

Consultant will provide geotechnical and foundation recommendations for roadway, bridge, retaining walls, and other structures, as required.

Consultant will prepare a geotechnical, materials and bridge foundation report with information gathered during the site visit and review of existing subsurface data, geotechnical borings, results obtained from the alternative analysis, and the preliminary bridge and retaining wall foundation data.

Geotechnical Field Exploration & Laboratory Testing
It will be the responsibility of the Consultant to notify Underground Service Alert (USA) and provide traffic control. The approved locations will be marked in the field and USA will be EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 43
455
notified. Traffic control in the City right-of-way (when required) for the field investigation will be performed in accordance with the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction per City requirements. Traffic control in Caltrans right-of-way will be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard Plans.

The deep boreholes will be excavated using a truck-mounted rotary-wash drill rig. Soil cuttings will be temporarily stored onsite in 55-gallon drums, tested for contaminants, then disposed offsite. The shallow boreholes will be excavated using a truck-mounted or track-mounted drilling rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Spoils generated from the hollow-stem auger borehole excavations will be mixed with cement and water and used to backfill the boreholes. Asphalt concrete cold-patch will be used to replace asphalt that is removed by excavations, and quick-set cement will be used to replace concrete that is removed by excavations.

Laboratory Testing
Consultant field personnel will collect soil samples for laboratory testing, including bulk samples of near surface soils and small disturbed and relatively undisturbed ring samples of deeper soils. The small disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples will be collected using split-spoon samplers at a vertical interval of about 5 feet, alternating between the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler and the Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler. Samples of subsurface soils will be logged during the field investigation, secured in their containers or collected in plastic bags, and transported to the Consultant laboratory.

Consultant will select representative soil samples for laboratory testing. Various laboratory tests will be performed to determine or derive physical and engineering characteristics of soils.

Anticipated laboratory soil tests include: in-situ moisture content and density, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, direct shear, consolidation, unconsolidated-undrained triaxial, Rvalue, maximum density and optimum moisture content, and soil corrosion tests. Tests will be conducted in general accordance with California Test methods or ASTM standards.

Preliminary Foundation Reports
PFRs are required for non-standard design elements located within Caltrans right-of-way only.

Based on current project layout, Consultant will prepare a Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) to provide preliminary geotechnical information to assist structural designers in the Type Selection process. These PFRs will be prepared using the available subsurface data and the format will be in accordance with the current Caltrans Guidelines.

Geotechnical Engineering Analyses
Results obtained from the field investigation and laboratory testing will be used to characterize subsurface soils and conditions and create idealized soil profiles for design purposes. The following analyses will be performed for the project:
• Evaluation of seismicity and estimation of Peak Ground Acceleration based on the Caltrans design criteria, and recommendations of an ARS curve for the bridge structural design.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 44
456
• Assessment of soil liquefaction potential, seismic settlement, and lateral spreading. • Foundation analysis for bridge and retaining walls.
• Assessment of global slope stability and settlement of embankments. • Evaluation of soil corrosivity conditions and recommendations for mitigation measures. • Design of pavement structural section in accordance with the Caltrans method.

Report Preparation
Consultant will analyze the results and present them in the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report will be prepared to include recommendations for design and construction of bridge foundations, bridge type selection, earth retaining structures, cut and fill slopes, pavement, and drainage facilities.

It is assumed that Caltrans will review only the improvements in their right-of-way; therefore, a Foundation Report will be prepared for retaining walls within Caltrans right-of-way. A Geotechnical Design Report and a Materials Report will be prepared for the improvements within Caltrans right-of-way. A Geotechnical Report will be prepared to include all other improvements within the project. The Foundation Report for non-standard retaining walls within Caltrans right-of-way will be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans GuidelineFoundation Reports for Earth Retaining Systems (ERS) dated June 2017. The Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guideline dated December 2006. The Materials Report will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Manual Topic 114 dated November 2017.

Assumptions:
• Geotechnical Investigation is allowed between 8am and 4pm on weekdays. • Engineer Stamped Traffic Control Plans are not included. Any borings requiring traffic control are assumed to be performed in accordance with the WATCH Manual. If required, Consultant can prepare Traffic Control Plans signed by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer for geotechnical boring work for an additional fee.
• Infiltration testing is not anticipated.

Deliverables :
• Geotechnical Report
• Foundation Report (FR)
• Geotechnical Design Report (GDR)
• Materials Report (MR)
Landscape & Aesthetic Concepts
Based on input provided by the City, the stakeholders and the information gathered during the site reconnaissance, the Consultant shall define opportunities and constraints including site features and context, climatic influences, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 45
457
landscape planting, and view corridors for use in the preparation of the landscape concept plan. Conceptual plans or exhibits shall be submitted. The landscape concept shall contain an initial plant palette, planting design, and median hardscape treatments. Consultant shall prepare an image board composed of relevant imagery. Proposed hardscape and softscape materials and finishes shall be included to further illustrate the design intent. Image boards may be presented at community outreach meetings, at the City's discretion.

Colored 2D exhibits shall be prepared for railroad bridge and retaining wall aesthetics.

Aesthetic options may be presented at community outreach meetings for stakeholder input.

Assumptions:
• Two (2) revisions to the landscape concepts is included in this scope. • Bridge and retaining wall aesthetics/architectural features should be similar to those found at the Sunset Avenue Grade Separation in the City of Banning.

Deliverables:
• Landscape Concepts
• Bridge and Retaining Wall Aesthetic Concepts
• Existing Conditions Imagery
• Existing Context Diagram
• Opportunities and Constraints Diagram
• Design Narrative
• Site Features Inspiration Imagery
• Retaining Wall Aesthetic Concept Elevations
• Railroad Bridge Fencing Aesthetic Concept Elevations
• Pedestrian Fencing Aesthetic Concept Elevations
• Conceptual Hardscape Materials & Finishes Plan & Imagery • Conceptual Planting Materials Plan, Palette List & Imagery • Existing and Proposed Perspective Rendering Views
Structure Type Selection Report
A Structure Type Selection Report will be prepared for the railroad bridge. The bridge type report will include a discussion of foundation and falsework requirements, seismic and aesthetic considerations, traffic handling requirements, staging, and construction cost.

Anticipated construction methods for building the bridge off-site and moving it into place will be identified in the Type Selection process and coordinated with the project geometry.

Consultant will submit Type Selection documents to the City, UPRR and CUPC for review and approval.

A Type Selection Report (TSR) will be required to be prepared for the Hargrave Undercrossing Retaining Wall and for the Hargrave Street Underpass bridge. The TSR will follow the guidelines of Caltrans Memo to Designers (MTD), Section 1-29 “Structure Type Selection”, EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 46
458
and Caltrans Office of Special Funded Projects (OSFP) Information and Procedures Guide, Section 4-2 “Structure Type Selection”.

The purpose of the TSR is to further evaluate the design of each structure and selected the appropriate structure and will conduct a constructability review to identify any potential challenges with the selected structure type. The TSR will encompass:
• Type Selection Memo: this will document the selection process used to choose the type of structure, it will discuss the pros and cons of the structure and potential construction challenges associated with the chosen structure, the design criteria that will be used including the seismic design criteria, and preliminary foundation recommendations that will be based off the Preliminary Geotechnical Report.
• General Plan of the proposed structure: This will include an Elevation View, Plan View, and Typical Section for each structure.
• General Plan Estimate: This will be the estimated construction cost for the proposed structure based on a high-level quantity takeoff for each structure.

The TSR for the underpass will be submitted to the City, UPRR, and CPUC for review and approval. The TSR for the undercrossing walls will be submitted to the City, and Caltrans. It is anticipated that a Type Selection Meeting (TSM) will be required for each structure. A TSM is expected with Caltrans for the Hargrave Street Undercrossing retaining wall, and a TSM is expected with UPRR for the Hargrave Street Underpass. Each of these meetings are expected to be virtual.

Deliverables:
• Structure Type Selection Report
• I-10 Hargrave Street Undercrossing Retaining Wall TSR • Hargrave Street Underpass Bridge TSR
• Virtual TSM with Caltrans for the I-10 Hargrave Street Undercrossing Retaining Wall • Virtual TSM with UPRR for the Hargrave Street Underpass Bridge

6.2. CALCULATIONS
All roadway calculations and structural analyses and design will be performed using Caltrans’ current standards and requirements.

Civil/Survey Calculations
The Consultant shall provide the following roadway calculations:
• Geometric traverse and right-of-way
• Template notes and slope staking note.
• Profile
• Grid grades.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 47
459
Survey calculations shall include measurements of square footage for certain fee takes and the associated closure reports necessary for PS&E.

Quantity calculations shall be submitted with the Cost Estimates.

Calculations shall be submitted at the 60% and 90% milestones and updated as required beyond the 90% milestone. The 60% calculations (Draft) shall undergo a cursory QA/QC review. The 90% (Final) calculations shall be fully checked and reconciled.

Assumptions:
• Cross sections for proposed roadway features (CL, TC, FL) will be provided at 25- foot intervals and key points.

Deliverables:
• Draft CiviI/Survey Calculations
• Final Civil/Survey Calculations
Structural Calculations
Structural calculations shall be provided for the bridge and any retaining walls that are not covered by Caltrans Standard Plans or are manufacturer-/contractor-designed retaining walls.

AASHTO and Caltrans criteria shall govern the design of the structures.

Calculations shall be submitted at the 65% and 95% milestones and updated as required beyond the 95% milestone. The 65% calculations (Draft) shall undergo a cursory QA/QC review. The 95% (Final) calculations shall be fully checked and reconciled with the Independent Checker. Supplemental calculations will be submitted at 100% as needed.

The design of the Hargrave Street Undercrossing Retaining Walls will utilize AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 8th Edition with interims from Caltrans, Caltrans Memo to Designers, and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, along with Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications.

The design of the Street Underpass will utilize the latest version of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Code as required by UPRR.

Deliverables:
• Draft Structural Calculations at 65%
• Final Structural Calculations at 95%
• Supplemental (or Updated) Structural Calculations at 100% Independent Check
Independent Structural Calculations shall be performed between the 65% and 95% milestones.

Assumptions:

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 48
460
• The bridge and retaining walls shall undergo a full independent check, and the deliverable shall include a second set of independent structural check calculations.

Deliverables:
• Independent Structural (Bridge) Calculations

6.3. PLAN PREPARATION
Plans shall be prepared and submitted for the 35%, 65%, 95%, 100% and Issued for Bid (IFB) (or Final) milestones. All plan checks, except Caltrans, UPRR and CUPC plan reviews, shall be submitted electronically through the City of Banning plan check portal. One (1) set of 24-inch x 36-inch original mylar signed/sealed plans shall be submitted for the IFB submittal.

Plans shall be prepared electronically according to the CADD Standards established in the approved Project Management Plan.

The following sections of this Scope of Services describe specific categories of plans (e.g.

Roadway Plans). Consultant shall not submit plans separately; all plans noted shall be submitted as a combined set at each milestone submittal.

Based on feedback received during the Project Concept Report phase from the City, Caltrans, and UPRR, we will prepare 35%, 65%, 95%, and 100%, and Issue for Bid (IFB) Plans to the City for review and comment. The plans will include the necessary civil and structural modifications within the project area. The scope and fee are based on the attached sheet count.

The plans will be prepared in accordance with applicable City of Banning, County of Riverside, Caltrans, Standard Plans for Public Works Construction, and CA MUTCD, and UPRR standards.

General Plans
General plans may include title sheet, vicinity and location map, sheet index, location map, construction notes, construction legend, standard symbols, telephone numbers of utilities and other affected agencies and businesses, basis of bearing and benchmark, general notes and abbreviations.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95%, 100% Plans
Survey Control Plan
Survey and horizontal control plan shall be developed to provide street and rail centerlines and bridge ties to establish project control points.

Deliverables :
• 65%, 95%, 100% Plans
Right-of-Way Plans
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 49
461
Sheets shall delineate the existing right-of-way, and the acquisitions and easements (specifically Temporary Construction Easements) that are available for the Contractor's use.

Assumptions:
• Temporary Construction Easements will not be shown elsewhere in the plans. If the City desires to show them in the plans, they will appear only on the Right-of-Way Plans.

Deliverables :
• 65%, 95%, 100% Plans
Roadway Plans
Roadway or related facilities plans shall be prepared in conformance with the current City Design and Standard Plans for roadway within City right-of-way and shall be per Caltrans standards and requirements within Caltrans right-of-way.

Roadway plans will include demolition and removal plans, typical sections, plan and profile, intersection details, off-site improvement plans, contour grading plans, temporary water pollution control plans, erosion control plans and construction details.

Working roadway cross sections will be prepared but we do not anticipate including these in the final plan set.

Roadway plans may include:
• Demolition and Removal Plans
• Typical Sections
• Cross Sections
• Plan and Profile
• Intersection Details
• Off-Site Improvement Plans
• Grading Plans
• Erosion Control Plans
• Construction Details
Deliverables :
• 35%, 65%, 95%, 100% Plans
Railroad Tracks Plans
Railroad tracks or related facilities plans shall be prepared in conformance with the current UPRR and CUPC standards and requirements within UPRR right-of-way.

Prepare railroad track plans in conformance with current UPRR and CPUC standard plans and formatting requirements that will include the following: general notes, details, construction phasing, shoofly typical sections, shoofly plan and profile, shoofly geometry table, shoofly cross sections, mainline track typical sections, mainline track plans and profile, mainline track geometry table, and mainline track cross sections. Railroad plans assume mainline track does not need to be raised.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 50
462
Railroad plans may include:
• Mainline Tracks Plans
• Shoofly Tracks Plans
• Typical Sections (Mainline & Shoofly)
• Cross Sections (Mainline & Shoofly)
• Plan and Profile (Mainline & Shoofly)
• Geometric Data Table (Mainline & Shoofly)
Deliverables :
• 35%, 65%, 95%, 100% Plans
Traffic Plans
Traffic plans may include:
• Traffic Signal Plans
• Pavement Delineation & Signage Plans
• Traffic Handling Plans
• Stage Construction Plans
• Detour and Construction Area Sign Plans
• Street Lighting Plans
Traffic Signal Plans will be prepared for the intersections of Hargrave Street and I-10 EB On/Off ramps and Hargrave Street and I-10 WB On/Off ramps.

Pavement Delineation & Signage Plans will be prepared for Hargrave Street from Ramsey Street to Lincoln Street.

Traffic Handling Plans will be prepared for the project along Hargrave Street from Ramsey Street to Lincoln Street.

Stage Construction Plans shall identify the general sequence of work. The Construction Schedule shall be based on the stages shown in the plans.

Detour and Construction Area Signage Plans will be provided showing routing (detours) for any full closures (such as long term, overnight, or weekend closures). Detour Plans will be provided for Hargrave Street, Lincoln Street, I-10 EB/WB On-ramp closure, and I-10 EB/WB Off-ramp closure.

Street Lighting Plans shall be provided for Hargrave Street and I-10 ramps within the project limits. Lighting will be required under the railroad bridge structure. It is assumed that no temporary lighting will be required. Photometry will be developed, and the plans will depict pole and luminaire type and locations, pull box and power source locations, and wiring/circuit diagrams, schedules, and details (as necessary).

Traffic plans will include traffic signal plans, pavement delineation and signage plans, traffic handling plans, stage construction plans, detour and construction area signs, and street lighting plans. We anticipate three construction phases for the phasing plans.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 51
463
Utility Plans
Consultant shall identify existing utilities based on collected record, survey, and pothole data.

Disposition (protect-in-place, abandon, relocate, relocate by others, etc.) of existing utilities shall be identified.

Proposed utility locations shall be based upon the Consultant's designed elements as well as information provided by third-party utility companies, including the undergrounding of electrical, telephone, cable facilities and petroleum transmission pipelines. Consultant shall design the City Utility relocations per the Cities' standards.

Consultant will develop a concept that relocates the sewer, water, and gas conflicting utilities along a new utility route. This concept will route the sewer lines along Livingston Street across the tracks to Florida Street and run east along John Street to tie back in at Hargrave Street.

Water and other dry utilities will be relocated deeper within Hargrave during the excavation of the road. Data tables for each utility identifying size, material, class, bearings, lengths will be included on each plan sheet. Demolition or abandonment limits of existing utilities will be identified.

Sanitary Sewer Plans: Existing City sanitary sewer facilities are located along Hargrave Street.

The existing sewer main along Hargrave Street between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street will require lowering to provide clearance for the new railroad bridge abutments. The existing sewer main goes from 8-inch VCP sewer main from Ramsey Street to John Street to 15-inch VCP sewer main from John Street to Lincoln Street. There are also three sewer manholes that will need to be reconstructed. The Consultant shall consider the need for a sewer bypass to maintain uninterrupted service during the construction phase. The 15-inch VCP sewer main along John Street will need to be adjusted to tie into the sewer main on Hargrave Street. Private property sewer lateral detail plans will be provided for re-establishing sewer lateral connections for the existing commercial buildings and residential houses adjacent to Hargrave and John Street to the newly constructed sewer mains.

Water Plans: Existing City water line facilities are located along Hargrave Street. The existing 14-inch CMLWS water main along Hargrave Street between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street will require lowering to provide clearance for the new railroad bridge abutments. Private property water service detail plans will be provided for re-establishing service connections for the existing commercial buildings and residential houses adjacent to Hargrave Street to the newly constructed water main.

Kinder Morgan Oil Pipeline: Existing 20” Kinder Morgan Oil pipeline is located 65 ft south of the train tracks. This pipeline runs along the train tracks within the project area limits. The Consultant shall coordinate with Kinder Morgan on the relocation plans to accommodate the new railroad bridge abutments.

Pothole Data Sheet(s): The potholes shall be identified on the plans. A pothole log shall be provided depicting station/offset, coordinates of pothole, utility information such as size, material, and depth, and elevations of existing ground and top of utility.

Assumptions:

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 52
464
• Existing utilities will be protected when possible.
• Sewer, oil and water proposed relocations will be done in-kind for pipe size and materials.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans
Landscaping & Irrigation Plans
Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with City's Specific Plan, City's Water Conservation Ordinance and Caltrans standards and requirements.

Landscaping Plans shall indicate plant species, sizes, quantities and locations with notes, legends, detailed reference callouts and planting details.

Irrigation Plans shall indicate all components and facilities for a permanent automatic irrigation system to support the improvements. Irrigation systems include, but is not limited to, sprinkler head layout, piping, valves, water supply Point-of-Connection(s), irrigation controllers with notes and callouts.

Irrigation system design shall incorporate current industry technology and installation methods to produce an efficient system operating within a public environment. Also included shall be the equipment and material legends, and installation details for proposed irrigation facilities.

Prepare landscape irrigation plans, details, notes and calculations portraying irrigation connection, backflow, controller, mainlines, sleeves, lateral lines, head layout and emitters for 100% coverage. The irrigation design will meet the specifications set forth in the State’s Water Efficiency Ordinance.

Irrigation system design shall incorporate current industry technology. Plans will provide notes for restoring existing landscape at the edges of the limits of work where there is disturbance due to the new irrigation design. It is understood that reclaimed water lines do not exist within the project limits.

Prepare landscape plans, schedule and details illustrating areas of planting, limits of planting, plant species, quantities, size, on-center spacing, water classification, details and notes. All proposed plantings will comply with the State’s Water Efficiency Ordinance.

We do not anticipate any irrigation systems within UPRR or Caltrans right-of-way.

Assumptions:
• Off-site landscaping is limited to restoring existing landscaping within the areas of disturbance for the proposed improvements.
• Reclaimed Water lines do not currently exist within the project limits.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans
• Irrigation Plans
• Irrigation Details
• Irrigation Schedule and Notes
• Planting Plans
• Planting Details
• Planting Schedule and Notes
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 53
465
Drainage Plans
Plans shall be provided for any proposed storm drain facilities, including Post Construction Structural BMPs. Plan and profile sheets shall be provided for all mainline storm drains. Plans shall include connector pipe profile sheets and miscellaneous construction detail sheets, as required, for detailing connections to existing facilities, and other miscellaneous details.

The primary conveyance system within the project area is surface flow that is collected in a ditch that runs along John Street, Banning Airport and eventually to the east into Smith Creek Channel. There is also an RCP that ranges in size from 30-inch to 54-inch owned by RCFC & WCD that collects stormwater along Hargrave Street and adjacent properties south of the train tracks all the way to Smith Creek Channel.

Drainage plans will depict the proposed system connecting to the existing system that exists as part of the City Master Plan at the intersection of Lincoln and Hargrave Street. We anticipate designing a new storm drain from the sump that extends to the south parallel to the existing storm drain due to grade differential. This will join the existing City maintained portion of the system at Barbour Street.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans
Bridge Plans
Layout sheets, elevations and details shall be provided for the structure selected in the Structure Type Selection Report.

Prepare a UPRR format bridge plan for the Hargrave Street Underpass railroad structure selected in the Structure Type Selection Report.

The 35% plans shall consist of the General Plan and Foundation Plan.

Caltrans Standard Plans and City/County Standards may be referenced, where applicable.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans
Retaining Wall Plans
Layout sheets, elevations and details shall be provided for the necessary retaining walls on the project.

The analysis, design, and layout of retaining wall types are included in this scope. The Consultant shall coordinate with Caltrans on the type of retaining walls needed for this project.

Caltrans Standard Plans and City/County Standards may be referenced, where applicable. 35% plans shall show preliminary layouts but retaining wall details will not be included at that submittal milestone.

We anticipate the following:
• Two ground anchor walls under I-10
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 54
466
• Two Caltrans Standard Modified Type 1 walls along the south side of the westbound ramp intersection
• Two Caltrans Modified Type 1 walls along the north side of the eastbound ramp intersection
• Two cantilevered concrete retaining walls on the north side of the railroad bridge • Two secant pile walls south of the UPRR bridge in the higher retained areas between Lincoln Street and the UPRR right-of-way
• Two Caltrans Standard Modified Type 1 walls near Lincoln Street in the shorter retained areas where these are more cost-effective.

The additional walls located outside of Caltrans and UPRR right of way, that are located south of the proposed UPRR underpass have been scoped to be modified Caltrans Standard Plan walls, with the exception of the wall that will be required to support the Banning Industrial Park. A total of 10 sheets have been assumed for these walls.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans
Log of Test Borings
Log of Test Borings sheets will be included as part of the structure plans. The consultant shall prepare the Log of Test Borings sheets in accordance with Caltrans Standard Procedures.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans

6.4. SPECIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall prepare and furnish Special Provisions for items of work included in the plans which are not covered in the Standard Specifications, Caltrans-approved standard special provisions, and City approved standard special provisions.

Technical Specifications and Special Provisions shall conform to the Greenbook and the City of Banning Department of Public Works latest and Caltrans Standard Specifications and standards for the bridge and retaining wall portions of the design.

The consultant team will prepare technical specifications based upon the boiler plate supplied by the City. Bid items will be described as reasonably required in the General Provisions and will be incorporated in the Contractor’s bid list. References for the technical provisions to the City Standards and Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook), Caltrans, or other appropriate specifications will be shown. 35% specifications will take the City boiler plate and provide a draft version that identifies the technical sections needed for the project.

Assumptions:

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 55
467
• Technical Specifications and Special Provisions shall be prepared in Microsoft Word format.
• General Conditions (boilerplate) shall be provided by the City and shall be updated by the Consultant.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans

6.5. COST ESTIMATES
Throughout the development of the PS&E, the Consultant shall update the preliminary cost estimate.

For construction costs, Consultant shall provide detailed project quantity estimates and cost estimates at the 65%, 95%, 100%. Bid Schedules shall also be provided with each line item referenced to a payment item in the Specifications. The 35% Cost Estimate shall be detailed but will not include crossreferences with the Specifications and the Bid Schedule.

In addition to construction cost, overall capital costs (including right-of-way and soft costs) shall also be provided at each milestone. Costs other than construction costs will require input and direction from the City.

The consultant team will prepare an Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) based on anticipated construction items and quantities for comparison to project budget and assistance during the Contractor’s bidding process. Unit prices will be derived from readily available current bid information based on similar projects within the area. Backup will be generated for lump sum items.

Contingencies will be shown, as agreed upon with City staff.

Assumptions:
• Cost Estimates shall be prepared in MS Excel format.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans

6.6. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The Consultant shall prepare a minimally detailed construction Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule to support the calculation of the number of Working Days for the Project construction. The CPM schedule shall be provided at the 35%, 65%, 95%, and 100% milestones.

Deliverables:
• 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Plans

6.7. VALUE ANALYSIS
The Consultant will provide a Value Analysis (VA) in accordance with Caltrans PDPM Chapter 19. This entails the following:
• Provide a qualified, independent Certified Value Specialist (CVS) team leader to lead a VA study in accordance with Caltrans value methodology. • Provide VA study documentation in accordance with City of Banning guidance.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 56
468
• Ensure that applicable data and correspondence and any other relevant information necessary for the VA study is collected, developed, and distributed. • Facilitate VA Team Meetings.
• Develop the Draft VA Study Charter (Attachments A, B, and C per the Caltrans Team Guide).
• Leading VA study. Participants will include the City of Banning, project development team staff, and key outside project stakeholders (local transportation agencies, local government, and permitting agencies). It is assumed that the City will provide any independent VA team members.
• Complete the Preliminary VA Study Report with input/review of VA Team and technical reviewers in accordance with the VA Report Guide – Third Edition and with the following items:
• A distribution list for the VA reports must be developed with the City. • Submit Preliminary VA Study Report as an electronic copy; no more than 2 weeks following Initial VA Presentation, as specified in the report distribution list. • Coordinate with the City on the project stakeholders’ responses to the Preliminary VA Study Report and prepare for an implementation meeting to resolve the disposition of the VA alternatives and finalize the VA study reportables (costs, performance, and value indices).
• Submit Final VA Study Report as specified in Caltrans VA Report Guide – Third Edition. Report should be submitted no more than 3 weeks following VA Final Presentation. Final VA Study Report will be an electronic copy in PDF format. • Provide Caltrans HQ VA Program Manager electronic copies of the Preliminary and Final VA Study Reports so they can be included in their annual reports to FHWA.

Deliverables:
• Preliminary and Final VA Study Report

7. RIGHT-OF-WAY
Licensed land surveyors will perform right-of-way engineering, mapping, and field surveys required for this task. This Project will require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. The acquisition process shall be conducted in accordance with the California Government Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and corresponding Regulations. City will review and approve all rightof-way-related work and deliverables.

7.1. RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS
The Consultant shall determine right-of-way needs and prepare exhibit strip plot map for submittal to Caltrans Right-of-Way. The Consultant shall identify the need for new right-of-way, new access control, permanent easements, and temporary construction easements. The Consultant shall coordinate with affected agencies to determine right-of-way impacts (including utility right-of-way needs). Caltrans will approve right-of-way requirements prior to initiating preparation of right-of-way maps.

The consultant team will prepare Parcel Impact Memorandums for up to four (4) commercial businesses. The memorandums will summarize temporary and permanent impacts to these businesses to assist in negotiations, agency approvals, and documentation of right-of-way EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 57
469
requirements.

Deliverables:
• Right-of-Way Requirements Map

7.2. RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPS
The Right-of-Way Base Map prepared during the data collection phase shall serve as the base map indicating existing features. Right-of-Way Maps shall include the following:
• Consultant shall identify improvements including monument business signs etc. that will be removed and or relocated as a part of the Project.
• Consultant shall prepare right-of-way maps at a scale approved by Caltrans reflecting right-of-way for the Project, including acquisitions and easements required for maintenance access, drainage, material sites, utilities, and construction work areas, as necessary. The Consultant shall also show access control. • Consultant shall perform the Pre-Construction Record of Survey. • We anticipate providing right-of-way requirement mapping in our plan set and updating at each identified submittal.

Deliverables:
• Right-of-Way Map

7.3. APPRAISAL MAPS, PLATS, AND DESCRIPTIONS
• The Consultant shall hire a Right-of-Way Acquisition Consultant to prepare legal descriptions, plats, deeds, and maps for each parcel acceptable to Caltrans and the City for conveyance of marketable title interests and for accurate representation of right-of-way necessary for construction of the Project.
• The Consultant shall prepare legal descriptions, plats, and maps acceptable to utility companies (as required) and the City for conveyance of marketable title interests and accurate representation of easements necessary for construction of the Project. • The Consultant shall prepare right-of-way maps acceptable to Caltrans. • A licensed Appraiser hired by the Consultant will be responsible for the preparation of appraisals as required by Caltrans. The appropriately licensed appraiser shall be used for commercial/industrial buildings, private homes etc. Consultant shall provide the required documentation to the Right-of-Way Acquisition Consultant to allow them to prepare the necessary appraisals for any property required for the Project. • An experienced Right-of-Way Acquisition Consultant shall be responsible for right-of-way negotiations and coordination with City representatives. • The Consultant shall prepare the necessary Caltrans Local Assistance Paperwork associated with utility relocations.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 58
470
Consultant shall prepare exhibits and descriptions for Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) to assist the City's Right-of-Way Consultant in performing appraisals and acquisitions.

Land Title Services
The consultant team has an acute understanding of the history of government patents and the determination of land grant ownership priority rights. We will secure Preliminary Title Reports and Litigation Guarantees early in the acquisition process. When reports are delivered, our team will review and create Exception Reports, noting any exceptions that need to be cleared during the acquisition process. Our title team reviews all California Code of Regulations (CC&R’s) to ascertain any issues that need to be addressed during the acquisition process.

Real Estate Appraisal Services/Appraisal Reports
The consultant team will coordinate the preparation of appraisal reports that will be used for the proposed acquisition of the property rights required. Our team of appraisers will appraise the necessary permanent and temporary property rights required for project. Valuations will include a determination of the Highest and Best Use of Properties, an analysis and determination of the “larger parcel” (as defined by: Use, Contiguity, Common Ownership) as well as severance damages, if applicable to partial acquisitions. Appraisal reports will be used to establish the fair market value and become the basis for the determination of Just Compensation set by the County. All appraisals will be in compliance with Caltrans requirements and USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice). For non-complex acquisitions with valuations less than $15,000, Paragon will provide Broker Opinions of Value/Waiver Valuations in lieu of appraisal reports.

Acquisition Services
The consultant team will perform the required acquisition services in accordance with the Caltrans Right of Way Manual; the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (49 CFR Part 24), as amended; Title 25 California Code of Regulations; California Code of Civil Procedures and the County own policies and procedures. The consultant team will prepare Receipt of Offer packages which list in detail all components of the offer delivered to the Owner. A thorough Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA/QC) will be performed by the Project Manager.

The consultant team will meet with Owners or their representative, (typically 3 contacts or more) from the date the offer is tendered until the signing of a purchase and sale agreement. The consultant team will contact and negotiate in good faith with the property owner, owner’s agent, tenants and/or lessees (as required and appropriate) at appointed times convenient for them to present the formal written offer. The offer will be delivered in person and the agent shall explain the relevant details of the acquisition. Paragon takes pride in its ability to successfully negotiate property and property rights agreements and settlements using good interpersonal skills, a sound understanding of the facts and issues, and solid technical prowess.

The consultant team will maintain a parcel diary of all pertinent information and contacts made with respect to the acquisition negotiations. The diary will be updated documenting every contact with each property owner, including a summary of the status of negotiations indicating the concerns of the owner and all relevant information about the status of negotiations. We will coordinate the acquisition process EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 59
471
with the County, legal counsel and property owners. The executed documents (acquisition agreements and executed deeds, etc.) will be promptly transmitted to your team for acceptance and processing.

Relocation Assistance Services
The consultant team will prepare and present the General Information Notice, Relocation Brochure, Notice of Eligibility and conduct interviews with the tenants immediately after the offer is presented.

For the relocations required, we will contact and interview site occupants to discuss the project and their relocation needs and preferences. This is when the agent needs to receive information from the displace in order to ascertain their needs and desires for a replacement site.

The consultant team will keep detailed, up to date and concise files for each displaced business, person or household and will personally inspect all referral and replacement properties to confirm they are decent, safe and sanitary (DS&S) and meet the needs of the displaced person(s). We will verify that move bid specifications are obtained for each commercial displace. A determination of furniture, fixture and equipment (FF&E) ultimate disposition will take place early. We will prepare and negotiate FF&E offers.

We assume that coordination and managing the disposition of Surplus Properties is excluded.

Assumptions:
• We anticipate up to 20 plats and legal descriptions.
• We assume no right-of-way transactions with Caltrans.

Deliverables:
• Plats and Legal Descriptions
• TCE Descriptions & Exhibits

8. COORDINATION, AGREEMENTS & PERMITS
This task encompasses coordination with the City and its various departments (such as Public Works, Community Development, Banning Electric Utility, Water and Wastewater, Transit, Police etc.), other involved agencies, private property owners and business owners for compatible design and phasing of construction with existing and proposed conditions. This task also encompasses the agreements and permits necessary to design and construct the Project.

Coordination may include:
a. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), Amtrak Sunset Limited, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
b. Caltrans District 8 (Caltrans)
c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) d. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
e. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
f. California Department of Fish and Game
g. Non-City Affiliated Utility Companies (Gas, Frontier, Edison etc.) EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 60
472
h. Property and business owners, and residents
The Consultant shall provide technical support and prepare documents necessary for executing agreements and obtaining permits needed for the construction of the Project. Permits anticipated for the construction of the Project include:
i. UPRR Construction & Maintenance Agreement
j. CPUC General Order 88-B Application
k. Caltrans Encroachment Permit
l. RCFC&WCD Encroachment Permit
Permits necessary for the design of the project shall be obtained by the Consultant (with City assistance, as necessary). Permits anticipated for the design of the Project include:
m. UPRR Right-of-Entry Permit
n. RCFC&WCD No-Fee Access Permit
o. Caltrans Encroachment Permit (for surveying, potholing, etc.) The Consultant shall provide technical support and required documentation to the Right-of-Way Acquisition Consultant for escrow agreements, temporary and permanent easements, County recordation, all required notices associated with the acquisitions and permits.

City shall pay for (or reimburse) any permit fees required for design and construction.

City shall waive (or pay other departments for) any permit fees related to survey, potholing, geotechnical investigation, etc. within City right-of-way.

We have assumed an allowance of $15,000 for permit fees.

Deliverables:
• Permits, as required for design and construction.

8.1. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD (UPRR)
Coordination with UPRR Railroad will include a Right-of-Entry Agreement, the preparation and execution of a Construction & Maintenance Agreement, and plan submittals and review.

The Right-of-Entry Agreement will be executed between UPRR and the Consultant, permitting access for data collection (e.g. survey). All personnel entering UPRR's right-of-way shall complete Union Pacific Property Access Training (UP-PAT).

We have assumed an allowance of up to $15,000 for the UPRR License Fee, which will be determined by UPRR.

Assumptions:
• The Consultant shall pay the License Fee and shall be reimbursed by the City. • Use of the UPRR right-of-way during design shall be limited to survey. and field inspection. Geotechnical investigations and potholing shall be performed outside of the UPRR right-of-way.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 61
473
Deliverables:
• UPRR Right-of-Entry Agreement
Construction & Maintenance Agreement
Review and approval of the design by UPRR will be required. Formal approval is expected to be provided through execution of a Construction and Maintenance Agreement. The Consultant shall prepare the text and associated exhibits.

Deliverables:
• UPRR Construction & Maintenance Agreement
Submittals
The Consultant shall submit plans to UPRR via the City for review and approval. The requirements of the UPRR/BNSF Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects shall be followed, which includes the following submittals for Overpass structures:
• Concept Submittal
• 30% Submittal
• Final Plans Submittal
The Concept submittal shall include the following:
• Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section of proposed grade separation. • Photo log with pictures of the proposed project location. Site pictures shall be in all controlling directions including North, East, South, and West. The plan view should show a reference location and direction for each picture.

The 30% submittal shall include the following:
• Applicant response to Railroad review comments on the concept submittal. The 30% submittal shall reflect concept review comments.
• Design Plans showing a Plan View, Elevation View, Typical Section, Construction Notes and Railroad Profile Grade Diagram.
• Project Specifications and/or Special Provisions, including Railroad coordination requirements. • Shoofly Design Plans
• Drainage Report (as required).
• Construction Phasing Plans must show all required phasing, construction procedures, temporary shoring layout, controlling dimensions and elevations.

The Final Plans submittal shall include the following:
• Applicant response to Railroad review comments on the 30% submittal. The Final Plans submittal shall reflect all previous review comments.
• Design Plans showing a Plan View, Elevation View, Typical Section, Construction Notes and Railroad Profile Grade Diagram.
• Project Specifications and/or Special Provisions, including Railroad coordination requirements.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 62
474
• Drainage Report (as required).
• Construction phasing plans must show all required phasing, construction procedures, temporary shoring layout, controlling dimensions and elevations.

At the conclusion of plan review and comment resolution, it is expected that UPRR will issue a letter of project acceptance.

Assumes UPRR will provide the initial construction and maintenance agreement, and our team will provide input. The City will provide necessary information not readily available to the consultant team. The City will take the lead in negotiating the agreement with UPRR.

Deliverables:
• UPRR Concept Submittal
• UPRR 30% Submittal
• UPRR Final Plans Submittal

8.2. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CUPC)
The Consultant shall provide the City will the necessary support, applications, drawings, exhibits, meetings, and other material required to obtain CPUC approval. For a General Order 88-B, the application package may include:
• Request to CPUC Staff for Authorization to Alter Highway-Rail Crossing Pursuant to General Order 88-B (Application Form)
• Vicinity Map
• General Plan & Profiles
• CEQA Notice of Exemption
• Traffic Handling Plans
• Interim Conditions
Deliverables:
• CPUC Field Diagnostic Meeting
• CPUC General Order 88- B Application
• The consultant team will provide the City with the necessary support, applications, drawings, exhibits, meetings, and other material required to obtain CPUC approval of the proposed grade separation of the Hargrave Street At-Grade Crossing (DOT#760695J, CPUC#001B-568.80). This scope assumes CPUC approval will be obtained through the General Order 88-B process, and that the existing grade crossing will be removed and there will not be a temporary grade crossing with the shoofly tracks. Crossing warning device relocations and pre-emption calculations are excluded from this scope. The consultant team will organize and facilitate one virtual diagnostic meeting, one field diagnostic meeting, and one review/coordination meeting during the application process. For a General Order 88-B, the application package encompasses:
• Request to CPUC Staff for Authorization to Alter Highway-Rail Crossing Pursuant to General Order 88-B (Application Form)
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 63
475
• Vicinity Map
• General Plan and Profiles
• Traffic Control Plans
• Construction Staging Plans
• CEQA Notice of Exemption

8.3. CALTRANS DISTRICT 8
Caltrans may exercise review and approval function through the City Project Manager at key points in the development process. All contacts with Caltrans will be directed through the City Project Manager.

The Consultant shall complete a Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 78-04 checklist for the geometric design. Once the DIB 78 is reviewed by Caltrans, Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD) for bold design exceptions and for underlined design exceptions will be prepared for Caltrans approval.

The Consultant shall complete the Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER) and shall support the City in obtaining an Encroachment Permit.

Deliverables:
• Caltrans Design Engineering Evaluation Report
• Caltrans Encroachment Permit
• The consultant team will obtain encroachment permits for geotechnical work, hazardous materials testing, and survey within Caltrans right-of-way. • It is assumed that Caltrans approvals will be processed through the Design Engineering
• Evaluation Report (DEER)/Short Form Quality Management Assessment Process (QMAP). This encompasses preparing a DEER report per the Caltrans standard template which will summarize the project. The DEER report will be prepared in parallel with design development and while an encroachment permit is issued. We assume a dual permit is needed; one for applicable items in the design phase and another that the contractor will submit along with items that are required from them (i.e. SWPPP, insurance, etc.).
• If non-standard features are determined during design within Caltrans right-of-way, the consultant team will prepare a Caltrans Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD) to document and obtain approvals of non-standard features. For budgetary purposes, we have assumed up to ten nonstandard features will be documented.

8.4. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Consultant shall coordinate with RCFC&WCD for access to their right-of-way during the design phase via an Access Permit. A No Fee Access Permit typically covers:
• Environmental or Engineer surveys
• Site reconnaissance
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 64
476
• Water sampling
• Temporary access for staging work
The Consultant shall assist the City in obtaining an Encroachment Permit (if required) for construction.

An Encroachment Permit typically covers:
• Trenching for installation of water, sewer, storm drain, cable, and other utilities • Aerial utility crossings
• Water monitoring and extraction wells, soil sample borings, and potholes • Construction of trails, bridges, and other recreation/transportation features • Installation of landscape/hard scape, curbs, driveways, sidewalk, pavements and fences or walls.

Deliverables:
• RCFC&WCD No Fee Access Permit
• RCFC&WCD Encroachment Permit (if required)
• A permit may not be issued since the impacted portion of the storm drain is maintained by the City; however, we assume that RCFC&WCD may want to review the Drainage Study to confirm there are no impacts to their portion downstream.

8.5. UTILITY COORDINATION
The Consultant shall provide utility coordination that entails coordinating the protection and relocation of existing facilities as described herein except for those procedures that must be performed by the City.

The Consultant shall coordinate with utility owners and the City with respect to utility related matters.

Consultant shall provide copies of all correspondence with utility companies and other utility related information to the City. Correspondence, as described herein, shall be prepared by the Consultant for either Consultant or City signature, as appropriate, as directed by the City's Project Manager.

Consultant shall monitor responses of utility notices received and make recommendations for mitigating conflicts. Consultant shall provide written responses to utility companies regarding stated concerns and conduct design coordination meetings with utility companies as needed. Unresolved issues shall be brought to the attention of the City's Project Manager as early as practical. Utility conflict issues shall be resolved prior to the completion of the final design plans as follows:
• Consultant, through City staff, shall request and obtain a written acknowledgement of any conflicts from the respective utility owners.
• Reasonable efforts shall be made to accommodate utility company requests for minor design changes to accommodate their facilities. Consultant understands that the utility companies are generally operating within the City right-of-way but may have prior rights to that of the City in some cases.
• Consultant shall monitor each utility owner that has conflicting facilities and shall obtain relocation plans and other relevant information from utility owner. Consultant shall review relocation plans for conformance with the requirements of the project.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 65
477
• Consultant will provide support to review and comment on third-party utility design plans provided by the utility companies (Kinder Morgan, SCE, SoCal Gas, Frontier, AT&T etc). Plan review will consider routes; conflicts with other utilities; impacts to existing and proposed improvements; and potential easements.
• Consultant shall coordinate inclusion of special provisions in City's bid documents for adjustments and relocations of utility facilities as alternate bid items, if requested by the owning utility. Said work may require that cooperative agreements be prepared by City between the City and the owning utility companies. Engineer shall provide information and exhibits as required to support the preparation of cooperative agreements, if needed. • For utility conflicts that require relocating, City staff will submit the official notice to the utility companies to relocate conflicting facilities.
• Consultant shall make recommendations for special provision language regarding utility issues, recommendations for construction windows of time for utility relocation activities, recommendations for inclusion of utility bid items, etc. • For utility conflicts with City owned water, sewer, or electricity that require relocating, Consultant shall prepare the required relocation plans or new installation plans as necessary to provide biddable Plans and Specifications. City staff will submit the official notice to the utility companies to relocate conflicting facilities.
• For utility conflicts or improvements within properties that will be affected by the Project, the Consultant is responsible for preparing the needed plans for relocation or demolitions and reestablishment (such as water, sewer, electrical services, gas services, and communication).

Consultant shall develop and maintain a master utility matrix throughout the life of the project as described in Task 2.4.

Assumptions:
• The City shall be responsible for any design fees assessed by third-party utility companies.
• This scope includes up to six (6) meetings with utility companies. (virtual Teams meetings is option, per City approval)
• For budgeting purposes, this scope anticipates three (3) review packages (plans and estimates) from each utility company (Kinder Morgan, SCE, Frontier and SoCal Gas) for a total of twelve (12) review packages.
• Utility Easement Agreements to be provided by the Utility Owner.

Deliverables:
• Utility Meeting Minutes
• Supporting documentation for cooperative agreements (as required)

8.6 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The Consultant shall coordinate and manage the community engagement component in conjunction with the City. Consultant shall prepare for, schedule, produce, and manage Community Engagement EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 66
478
Meetings at key decision points. Renderings for public meetings showing the selected plan shall be provided. The Consultant shall host and/or participate in community meetings, one-on-one meetings with property owners and/or business owners, as well as presentations to the City's Downtown Ad Hoc Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council during various progress phases. Based on input, the Consultant will incorporate changes to the design (when possible) and present the final schematic design to the Community and City Council using colored interactive viewing/navigation of project design alternatives and phases depicting overall look and feel to aide in stakeholders' and public's understanding of the proposed improvements.

The Consultant will work with the City to develop a detailed outreach approach, which is anticipated to include:
• Public Outreach Plan: A detailed Public Outreach Plan will serve as the guiding blueprint and document for informing and engaging the public and project stakeholders. • Public Meetings: Up to four (4) public meetings will be coordinated at strategic times during the project such as when a project milestone is reached or when significant impacts to public safety are expected.
• Stakeholder Database: A comprehensive stakeholder database for the project will include elected officials, city offices, businesses, schools, civic groups, residents, emergency responders, and other sensitive receptors and interested stakeholders in the project area. • Notification: Consultant will produce, with the City’s input, notices to send out to all stakeholders.

Assumptions:
• Renderings for public meetings shall consist of photo simulations (rendering superimposed on photograph) from ground and aerial perspectives. • Up to four (4) Community Outreach Meetings are included in this scope. • Up to two (2) one-on-one meetings with property and business owners are included in this scope.
• Up to two (2) presentations to the Planning Commission are included in this scope. • Up to two (2) presentations to the City Council are included in this scope.

Deliverables:
• Public Outreach Plan, Stakeholder Database
• Community Outreach Meetings
• City Council, Planning Commission Presentations
• We assume up to four separate photo simulations / renderings will be provided. • Based on the environmental assumptions, community engagement is limited to public outreach and not a formal hearing. Therefore, a court reporter and transcribing are not necessary.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 67
479
• We have assumed up to 1.5 mile radius for mailing of notices for public outreach.

8.7 RESOURCE/ REGULATORY PERMITTING (OPTIONAL)
Based on initial review and design clarification that includes the diversion of flows west of Hargrave Street, the following permits may be required: Section 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act as issued by the USACE, Section 401 Permit under the Clean Water Act as issued by the RWQCB, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement as issued by the CDFW under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. It is assumed that if a Section 404 Permit is required, the project will fall under a Nationwide Permit. If an Individual Permit under Section 404 is required instead, it will be prepared under a separate amendment. If a Section 404 Permit is not required due to absence of aquatic resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE, a Waste Discharge as issued by the RWQCB may still be required.

This task does not include verification of jurisdictional resources by the USACE or RWQCB because verification is expected to occur during the preparation of the jurisdictional delineation report. CDFW does not typically verify the results of jurisdictional waters until a complete Streambed Alteration Agreement application is submitted.

The consultant team will prepare the applications of all three anticipated permits with support from the project design team, including determining volumes of fill and dredged materials, impact areas, methods, and the Project Description. A complete Streambed Alteration Agreement requires a certified CEQA document or categorical exemption. If the project is changed after submittal to the CDFW, then the CDFW is no longer subject to their self-mandated processing deadlines. Permit packets are expected to be complete when submitted. Preparation of an on-site mitigation plan is not included in this Scope of Work as the mitigation requirement, if any, would likely be met through participation in a mitigation bank or inlieu fee program, if available. Preparation of detailed sand transport studies or similar reports, if required by the regulatory agencies, are not included in this Scope of Work. A pre-application meeting with the RWQCB will be required as part of the permitting application preparation process. A field meeting with the USACE or RWQCB is not anticipated as part of the permitting process. The consultant team anticipates that additional required coordination will take place via telephone, email, and U.S. mail. The consultant team assumes the Client will pay any and all fees associated with regulatory agency permitting. The Section 401 Permit will include an Alternatives Analysis consistent with the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The level of Alternatives Analysis for the project is anticipated to fall under the requirements of “Tier 2 Projects,” which specify an analysis of on-site alternatives that would potentially reduce impacts to waters of the State.

Tier 2 Projects are those that impact more than 0.1 acre to 0.2 acre or more than 100 linear feet and less than or equal to 300 linear feet of waters of the State. The specific tier will be determined once impacts are calculated.

Deliverables:
• 404 Nationwide Permit
• 401 Water Quality Certification
• Alternatives Analysis to support the 401
• 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 68
480

9. BIDDING SERVICES

9.1. RESIDENT ENGINEER (RE) PENDING FILE
The consultant shall provide the RE Pending File to the City for use by the Construction Management team during construction. It is assumed that the following will be provided:
• Permits
• Surveying Notes
• Copies of As-Built Data
• Geotechnical Report
• Drainage Report
• Relevant Correspondence and Memoranda
• Quantity Calculations
• Cross Sections
• Environmental Agreements & Reports
• Right-of-Way Agreements
Deliverables:
• Public Outreach Plan, Stakeholder Database

9.2. BIDDING PHASE SUPPORT
Consultant shall assist the City in providing clarification and prepare information to be used in addenda based on questions that may arise during the bidding process.

Consultant shall attend the pre-bid meeting and assist the City with bid evaluations and recommendation of bid award.

Assumptions:
• This scope includes two (2) addenda and one (1) pre-bid meeting. • Clarification and addenda for up to fifteen (15) questions are included in this scope. • The city shall prepare, and make available to plan holders, any required addenda.

9.3. CONFORMED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Consultant shall prepare conformed plans and specifications for use in constructing the project. The Issued for Construction (IFC) conformed plans and specifications shall reflect changes made during bidding and will be noted as a revision to the final design plans.

Assumptions:
• IFC Plans and specifications shall be provided in .pdf format.

Deliverables:

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 69
481
• IFC Plans
• IFC Specifications

10. CONSTRUCTION PHASE FUNDING
The consultant shall develop a funding strategy for construction phase. The consultant shall identify all the potential funding sources and associated requirements including deadlines and funding options to secure construction funding on behalf of the City.

Deliverables:
• Construction Funding Source Strategy Memo
• Grant Funding Support (Optional)
o As directed and approved by the City, we have allocated up to $100,000 to assist the City with Construction Phase Funding grant applications such as the Local and Regional Project Assistance Program (RAISE) Grant or the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 70
482

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 5
A. Statement of Understanding and Approach
Understanding
The Hargrave Street at-grade crossing (Hargrave Grade
Separation) has been a top priority for the City since the early 2000s. It was part of the Grade Separation Priority Study for Alameda Corridor East in Riverside County and has consistently remained in the Priority 1 Group since 2012.

With over 17 trains per day on the UP (Yuma Main) double track, traveling at speeds up to 60 mph on a steep railroad downgrade, safety is a big concern--this project will address these safety issues.

Hargrave Street is currently a two-lane road classified as a Secondary Highway carrying over 25,000 AADT with no
pedestrian facilities at the railroad crossing. The City’s General Plan Street System shows a potential realignment of SR 243 through Hargrave Street, which would route additional traffic volumes to this area.

The surrounding area has a mix of aging residential and industrial development with underserved racially diverse communities. In addition, these communities are bisected by the I-10 Freeway and railroad. These conditions create a hot-spot for vehicle, pedestrian, and train conflicts. They also impede emergency response access, creating concerns for the community as well as challenges addressing the wildfires which are a high risk in the Pass Area.

The City is moving forward with industrial redevelopment in this area, most notably the conversion of the airport. Adjacent stakeholders, such as the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo) and the County also have plans that include development and supporting transportation projects. All these planned developments depend on Hargrave Street as a primary access point to the I-10 freeway. These challenges will be addressed with the Hargrave Grade Separation. The City envisions the new grade separation will be similar to the recent successful grade separation at Sunset Avenue. This will require lowering Hargrave Street and the impacted freeway ramps between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street. Impacts to the railroad, residents, and businesses in this area during construction need to be minimized. The project has funding through the design phase with the local WRCOG TUMF program, a Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant through the FRA, and SB 125 funds passed through the County of Riverside.

The City recognizes the complexity of the project and will require a team that can design the project and support the City with funding compliance, public outreach, and seeking construction funds.

Conditions at the Hargrave St. crossing result in delays and significant safety issues.

Project Benefits:

Reduces congestion
Improves traffic flow
Lowers greenhouse gas emissions
Improves safety
Improves disaster preparedness
Improves racial equity in povertystricken neighborhoods Increases job opportunities
The Kimley-Horn team will design a project that meets ALL your project goals:

Maintain an environmentally exempt project (SE/CE).

Coordinate with adjacent planned developments, especially the airport redevelopment area.

Deliver a grade separation that minimizes road closures and impacts to the residents and businesses.

Minimize impacts to the UPRR.

An aesthetically pleasing project that sets the trend to improve and revitalize the east side of Banning.

Provide effective public outreach to maintain public support.

Assist with funding compliance and seek construction funds.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 71
483

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
6 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
Potential Future Street Improvements
Wilson St
Lincoln St
Westward Ave
Nicolet St
First Industrial Way
Hargrave St
Hargrave St
Future Coachella Valley Rail Line
Morongo Interchange Improvements
Sketchers
I-10 Bypass
First Hathaway Logistics
Banning Commerce Center
Future Morongo Industrial Park
Airport Redevelopment Area
25 Banning
Estes Express Terminal
10 Rancho San Gorgonio
Future Cottonwood Road Interchange
Hargrave Grade Separation – The Gateway to Redevelopment EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 72
484

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 7
Approach and Methodology
To accomplish the project goals, Kimley-Horn offers the City a consultant team with a strong track record of design and approvals of similar projects, and understands the community, planned adjacent projects, and all the dynamics associated with redevelopment of the southeast side of the City. The following topics demonstrate the unique advantage the Kimley-Horn team brings that will make this project successful.

We have organized our approach to address the major topics within the Scope of Work. The following shows how this is ordered within this section.

Project Administration
Design (Data Collection, BODD, Concept Development, PS&E) Environmental
Right-0f-Way
Coordination, Agreements & Permits
1 2
3 4
5 GUIDE TO APPROACH
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 73
485

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 8

1. Project Administration
Our project manager Darren Adrian, PE knows that
effective project management is critical to achieving
project success. His extensive experience delivering
similar grade separation projects requiring close
coordination with UPRR and Caltrans is unmatched.

Darren and his team will do the heavy lifting, serving
as a true extension of City staff. His hands-on
approach to managing this project is comprised of
seven equally important functions that support the
project’s progress and ultimately, its success.

1. Effective and Ongoing Coordination
with the City

2. Coordination with External Stakeholders

3. Coordination with the Internal Team

4. Workflow and Schedule Tracking

5. Budget Tracking

6. Risk Management

7. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Effective and Ongoing Coordination with the City – Darren and the team will maintain ongoing communication, including regular project updates, to Nate Smith, PE and his designated staff. This will include meetings, phone conversations, emails, schedule updates, and a deliverable tracking matrix.

Coordination with External Stakeholders – The monthly
Project Development Team (PDT) meetings serve as a time for more formal project status reports to the PDT. Additionally, we will conduct focus meetings with specific stakeholders or City departments to proactively address and resolve any anticipated issues. Each meeting is planned with a specific strategy, goal, and outcome aligned with the project objectives.

Below is a list of each key project stakeholder, their concerns, and Kimley-Horn’s approach to addressing their concerns. Our 15+ years of experience coordinating with stakeholders and delivering projects throughout the Pass Area provide a solid foundation for the success of this project.

Project Manager with Strong Ties to the Pass Area
Having grown up in the City of Banning, Darren cares deeply about this community. His commitment to the project is as much personal as it is professional. He will leverage his 33 years of experience working on major transportation projects in Riverside County to efficiently manage and successfully deliver this project.

Rail
Municipal
Roads
Caltrans
Interchanges
Wilson Ave Hargrave Grade
Separation

ITERATIVE

COMPROMISE

BALANCE
Darren will proactively manage all three primary elements of the Hargrave Grade Separation, reducing schedule
delays and preventing cost overruns.

Darren has recently worked with all
of these stakeholders, earning their
trust. This offers distinct advantages
for coordination, as he is not perceived
as an “outsider” which is often a
challenge when implementing major
infrastructure improvements in a closeknit community.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 74
486

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 9
Stakeholder Project Role Primary Interests Kimley-Horn Team Approach City of
Banning
Owner/Sponsor Completing the design and construction
of the project on time and within budget.

Avoiding impacts to the community during
construction.

Implement our proven schedule and
budget tracking
Leverage our knowledge of the
community and adjacent projects
FRA Federal Funding Compliance with grant funding agreement. Leverage our knowledge of FRA and previous FRA staff
Caltrans Jurisdiction over I-10
and interchange
Remaining within proper Caltrans process
and avoiding non-standard features.

Leverage our current experience with the
new DEER process and reference the Sunset
Grade Separation and other recent projects
UPRR Approvals for all work
within UPRR R/W
Avoiding impacts to train operations and not
precluding future expansion/improvements.

Provide win-win solutions based on our
current projects and the Sunset Grade
Separation
Morongo Adjacent jurisdiction
with major development
plan
Coordinate timing of their planned
development for Section 12 West.

Leverage our current work with Morongo
on Section 12 West to coordinate a win-win
solution
Utility
Agencies
Companies with
jurisdiction over
their utility
Obtain access to Section 12 West in
coordination with the timing of their planned
development.

Leverage relationships and knowledge of
the area on adjacent projects.

Engage our staff who work with Kinder
Morgan
Emergency
Services (CHP,
Police, Fire)
Use Hargrave Street
for access to serve the
community
Maintaining response times during
construction. Providing a safe facility that
allows emergency vehicle access.

Coordinate alternate/detour routes early.

Develop TMP measures in partnership
with emergency services.

RCFC & WCD Jurisdiction over Line
G south of Westward
Avenue
Changes upstream having an impact to their
system downstream.

Confirm concept early and complete the
drainage calculations for approvals
Environmental
Resource
Agencies
Jurisdiction over
permitting
Impacts to environmental resources, such as
bio, hazmat, noise, cultural, etc.

Leverage previous work in the area and
agreed-upon solutions with resource
agencies
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 75
487

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 10
Coordination with the Internal Team – Our internal team is comprised of Kimley-Horn staff and subconsultants with recent experience working together on similar projects. We will hold weekly all-hands meetings as needed through all project phases. For technical specialty items, we will hold internal workshops with key team experts.

The table below list the various meetings which will be scheduled to ensure the City and stakeholders remain fully informed throughout the project and have ample opportunities to provide input:

Meeting Type Frequency Objective
City Staff/PM As Needed Regular status updates, meeting prep, meeting debriefings, follow-up, etc.

PDT Monthly Report project status to the PDT, review Risk Matrix and Action Items.

Stakeholder Focus As Needed Accomplish established meeting objective to advance the project within the schedule and budget.

Internal Team Check-In Weekly Monitor work status and coordinate between disciplines.

Technical Focus As Needed Solve technical issues and identify cost and schedule savings.

FRA Update/Coordination Monthly Keep FRA up-to-date and coordinate any outstanding items.

Staff Planning Weekly Secure proper staff to meet the schedule and quality objectives.

Budget Tracking Semimonthly Review current budget status and cost-to-complete.

Project Review Quarterly Big picture review of project success and client satisfaction.

Quality Calls/Quality Visits Semiannual Independent check-in with client to verify client satisfaction and obtain input.

Workflow and Schedule Tracking – Understanding proper workflow to obtain input and keep the approval process on track is critical to the success of the project. We will manage the workflow and durations shown in our schedule at least monthly to assure the project follows the correct sequence that the process requires. One of the tools we use to assist with this is a Workflow Diagram. The condensed version on the following page will be expanded upon in our Project Work Plan (PWP) and reviewed with our Gant Chart Schedule at monthly PDT Meetings.

We have already developed a detailed project schedule showing tasks, subtasks, and agency reviews that can be found at the end of the Approach section. Our approach is to establish an agreed-upon Target Schedule, which includes obtaining concurrence from stakeholders on review periods. Our team track progress at least monthly. If a task can be started early, our team moves forward to help provide schedule contingency should something unforeseen come up. We also monitor schedule risks monthly as part of risk management.

The following page shows a condensed version of the schedule along with the Workflow Diagram described above. This demonstrates major milestones and important items along the way for project success. The expanded schedule at the end of this section shows the details and identifies risks that will be managed according to our PWP.

Kimley-Horn’s organized
approach and adherence
to the schedule,
especially submittal
milestones, stands out
from the others.
- SCRRA Staff
Our core team’s preference to work collaboratively in the office offers many advantages on large, multidisciplinary projects like the Hargrave Grade Separation. By having all major engineering functions in-house, we foster seamless team collaboration, synergy, creativity, and coordination.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 76
488

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
11 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr IV. D Data Collection
IV. E Basis of Design Memorandum
IV. F Concept Development and Project Approval
IV. G Environmental Documentation
35% PS&E
65% PS&E
95% PS&E
100% PS&E
IV. J Coordination, Agreements and Permits
IV. K Bidding Services
IV. M Construction
IV. C Project Administation and Management
IV. H Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
IV. L Construction Phase Funding
Key Milestones in FRA Grant Agreement
NEPA Completion
Preliminary Engineering Completion
Final Design Completion
Right-of-Way
Certification
Issued for Bid (IFB) PS&E
IV. I Right-of-Way
Data Collection Project Concept Approval 35% 65% 95% 100% IFB Procurement Bidding Construction Ribbon Cutting
Funding
Strategy
Funding
Apps
Environmental
Permit
Applications
Right-of-Way
Processing
Finalize
Permits and
Agreements
Environmental
Technical
Studies
Caltrans DEER
Approvals
FRA
Coordination
CPUC
Coordination
UPRR
Plans
NTP
Condensed Project Workflow Diagram
Condensed Schedule
DESIGN
Project Workflow and Schedule
Preliminary Design, Environmental,
and Final Design PS&E = 36 months
Public
Outreach
No 2
Public
Outreach
No 1
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 77
489

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 12
Budget Tracking – Darren’s approach to budget controls is thorough and effective, giving the City peace of mind that this project will be delivered without cost overruns. We utilize our internal MIS project management tool for staff assignments and cost tracking, which is updated semimonthly. This ensures our staff is committed for the project duration and evaluated regularly to confirm the level of effort required. Additional staff can be added as needed through this same process. There will be no surprises—we notify the City immediately of any potential changes to scope.

Risk Management – We will develop a Risk Register, provide regular status updates, and obtain input in the monthly PDT Meetings. We will also develop mitigation strategies and conduct a more formalized Risk Review Meeting at two key milestones: the concept development/environmental studies phase and at the 65% design milestone. In the following table, we have identified project risks along with our proposed approach to address them.

Title Potential Impact Risk Statement Kimley-Horn Team Approach NEPA Lead Schedule FRA funding is the trigger for
NEPA; however, Caltrans is also
involved as they have jurisdiction
of I-10 and the interchange.

Confirm discussions with FRA and Caltrans.

Verify if formal delegation process is needed.

Clearly identify FRA actions and needs.

Not Compliant
with SE/CE
Schedule
Scope/Budget
Technical studies or other project
elements showing a need to do
higher level ED.

Use knowledge of the environmental concern with
wildlife agencies to maintain a SE/CE.

Project features must only be what’s required for the
grade separation.

Not Compliant
with Caltrans
DEER Process
Schedule
Scope/Budget
Not meeting an item on the DEER
Checklist potentially kicks out of
the process and into full oversight
with PSR, PA/ED, and PS&E.

Obtain exception for non-standard structures early in
the process.

Maintain all checklist items moving forward.

Discuss creative options if technically kicked out of
process (i.e. modified full oversight process).

Environmental
Resource Agency
Concurrence
Schedule, Scope/
Budget
USFWS/CDFW request a
Sediment Transport Study due to
downstream MSHCP concerns.

Provide drainage study that shows the major runoff
coming from the Ramsey Street Drain which is not
being impacted.

Caltrans
Approvals
Schedule
Scope/Budget
Delays in obtaining approvals or
expansion of scope.

Maintain schedule and hold workshops with Caltrans.

Layout the latest requirements with Caltrans at the
beginning and maintain this course throughout.

UPRR Approvals Schedule Delays in obtaining approvals   Segregate other activities to keep the project moving forward.

Recognize that UPRR will be one of the last to provide
approvals and work with them.

Kinder Morgan
Line
Schedule
Scope/Budget
Delays in getting Kinder Morgan
to the table and establishing the
solution
Engage our Kinder Morgan Designer’s to assist with
concept and contacts at Kinder Morgan.

Leverage our parallel coordination with relocations of
Kinder Morgan facilities in tribal lands.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 78
490

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 13
Title Potential Impact Risk Statement Kimley-Horn Team Approach Arco Station Schedule
Budget
Lowering of Hargrave Street
having adverse impacts on
access due to fuel pumps being
directly adjacent to the street.

Narrow the southerly driveway to show that revised
grades work.

Provide the option of additional circulation around the building as mitigation for narrowing the driveway.

Adjacent
Development
Timing
Schedule Adjacent development needs
and timing can have an adverse
impact on the project and create
doubt from the public.

Use our knowledge of adjacent developments to
coordinate configuration and timing.

Seek features that present cost-savings and reduced
impact to the community.

Coordination
with Adjacent
Transportation
Projects
Schedule
Quality
Adjacent project configuration
and timing can have an adverse
impact on the project and create
doubt from the public.

Use our knowledge of projects to coordinate
configuration and timing.

Seek cost-saving features that reduce impact to the
community.

Contractor
Availability
Budget If adjacent projects run
concurrent, available contractors
may be limited, leading to
increased bids and delays.

Monitor adjacent projects based on involvement
and history.

Track these projects and coordinate with the Hargrave
Grade Separation to optimize resources.

Lack of
Construction
Funds
Budget Inability to obtain adequate
construction funding.

Leverage our information and input for efforts on
adjacent projects to maximize our funding chances.

Engage political support from Morongo and the other
stakeholders in the Pass Area.

Quality Assurance and Control – We will compile a project-specific Quality Management System (QMS) Manual and execute our quality control procedures with internal team members and subconsultants. We will conduct the initial training upon initiating project work and implement quality assurance to confirm the process. The following graphic shows our comprehensive QA/QC review process which occurs before submitting deliverables.

1. Discipline Level Quality Control 2. Interdisciplinary Review 3. Final Review Quality Assurance / Quality Control Process

Q/A OVERSIGHT OF PROCESS

INDEPENDENT

REVIEWS

ORIGINAL QUALITY CHECK

REVISION BACKCHECK

TRAFFIC RIGHT OF WAY/

UTILITIES
CIVIL/

ROADWAY

DRAINAGE GEOTECH

STRUCTURES
WATER

QUALITY RAIL

ENVIRONMENTAL

COMPLIANCE
PM
REVIEW
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 79
491

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 14

2. Design (Data Collection, BODD, Concept Development, PS&E) Adjacent Projects
Understanding planned adjacent projects and their potential impacts is critical to the success of the Hargrave Grade Separation. These impacts include everything from the project basis of design and specific design features, to timing, interim conditions, and potential impacts to the community.

The recent Sketchers building on the south side of I-10 and the construction of the Banning Commerce Center just across the freeway on the north side will have near-term impacts on Hargrave Street at the grade crossing and freeway interchange.

The airport redevelopment area will have the largest impact in the area. The airport closure has gone through legislative approvals and is moving faster than originally believed. If coordinated properly, this success could result in opportunities for the Hargrave Grade Separation. An example is the potential for coordinating the ultimate disposition of the adjacent Banning Industrial Park. If the long-term plan is to add this into the redevelopment area, this could be coordinated with the grade separation design to eliminate retaining walls and present a significant cost savings. The Kimley-Horn team is assisting Hillwood with processing for the airport closure which puts our team in the perfect position to help identify and coordinate opportunities such as this.

Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo) recently brought on a developer to implement a new industrial park in Section 12 (west) that is directly adjacent to the airport redevelopment area. This development is currently planned to move faster than the airport redevelopment area, but it has a critical need for access, whether temporary or permanent. As the City navigates potential access options, it will be important to align the Hargrave Grade Separation with respect to timing and expected traffic volumes.

To support these developments and other regional needs in the area, there are several planned adjacent transportation projects. These include the I-10 Bypass, potential reconfiguration of the I-10/Ramsey Street (Cottonwood interchange), I-10 mainline improvements, and the Morongo interchange improvements. All of these projects will need to be coordinated with respect to timing and the ultimate traffic circulation along Hargrave Street and the interchange. These projects will ultimately act as a system within the project area and will need to be accounted for in the basis of design and critical design decisions needed on the Hargrave Grade Separation. For example, the initial data indicates the need for a six-lane facility along Hargrave Street; however, impacts to the adjacent properties would be severe, and there will be a desire to show long-term benefit with four lanes. With the I-10 Bypass traffic redistribution, the long-term benefit with four lanes may be clear since a portion of traffic will use the new roadway and not need to use Hargrave Street. The Kimley-Horn team addressed this exact situation recently on the McKinley Grade Separation in Corona where our team was able to show an ultimate configuration of four lanes instead of six in order to avoid major impacts and keep the project moving forward.

We proactively resolve potential schedule and budget impacts Our team has been involved with every major project which will influence the Hargrave Grade Separation— we will proactively identify and solve any challenges BEFORE they impact the schedule or future construction plans.

Airport Redevelopment
Hillwood currently estimates that
new development could be in the
ground within four years. This will
require close coordination with the
grade separation project.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 80
492

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 15
Caltrans Topographic Mapping
The RFP describes a two-step aerial mapping process so that design can commence before obtaining ABC Mapping approvals from Caltrans since this can take 4 to 6 months. Our Surveyor works with Caltrans District 8 as part of an on-call contract and proposes to obtain initial input on flight path from Caltrans to reduce or eliminate the need for flying the project site twice. The final approved ABC mapping may require recompiling or adjusting the initial data but would likely not require flying the site twice. This will present a cost-savings for the project.

Roadway Design
The Kimley-Horn team assisted the City with an initial design concept for project scoping and funding applications. This was based on available mapping and indicated a potential need to raise the tracks to accomplish the grade separation similar to the Sunset Avenue project. Since the relationship of the proposed roadway profile to the track elevation is so critical to the final scope of work, we recently conducted a drone scan to obtain accurate 3D points and better determine whether it was necessary to raise the mainline UPRR double tracks.

We have already solved your biggest technical challenge! The more accurate points revealed it is possible to obtain vertical clearance without extending the profile into Ramsey Street or raising the tracks. However, the existing foundations of the I-10 undercrossing structure are still a significant constraint.

Our team developed a concept that protects the existing footings and achieves the required vertical clearance without raising the tracks. This concept is consistent with Caltrans’ acceptance of a similar approach for the Sunset Grade Separation project, addressing concerns regarding the roadway profile, retaining walls, and protection of existing footings. (The Structures section below describes this approach in more detail.)
Benefit to
the City
9 6+ Month
Schedule
Savings
9 $10M+
Construction
Cost Savings
The exhibits on the following pages show the updated concept with additional information and notes indicating opportunities and constraints. Key elements of the concept are:

Maintaining the lowering of Hargrave Street
between Ramsey Street and Lincoln Street
(i.e. not extending into the intersection of
Ramsey Street).

Railroad bridge footprint and orientation to match
Sunset Avenue which has additional bridge space
to the south of the double track.

Minimize impacts to UPRR tracks.

Only impact freeway ramps up to gore areas.

Provide opportunities for hardscape and handrail/
fencing that aesthetically enhance the area.

We got a head start on design to save you time and money Our team’s initial design concept and drone scan for the Hargrave Grade Separation project will result in a three-month schedule savings and reduce the risk of design changes when the surveys come in.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 81
493

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 16
One of the challenges will be fitting necessary features for Hargrave Street within the constrained area under the freeway. The existing opening is only 60 feet. In addition, the existing abutment footings and angled piles create constraints for the location of walls.

Based on these constraints, lanes and shoulders will need to be narrowed (non-standard). Since there isn’t enough room for a separate Class II bike facility, there will be a need for creative options so that both the avid and casual bicyclist can safely pass under the freeway. Our team has come up with three potential options:

Option 1 - Sharrow with separate raised pedestrian sidewalk.

Option 2 - Raised path shared by pedestrians and bicyclist.

Option 3 - A combination of Options 1 and 2 to provide the avid and casual bicyclist the ability to take either path.

Our team was able to obtain Caltrans approvals for similar non-standard lane widths under the SR 60 freeway as part of the Fullerton Grade Separation project. We are also in process of obtaining approvals for bicycle use on sidewalks for a Caltrans facility along SR 90 in the City of Brea.

The existing I-10 Undercrossing structure does not allow room for the ultimate Class II bicycle facility. Our team has other viable options and will investigate with the City and Caltrans.

Option 2
Option 1
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 82
494

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
17 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
Consider increasing
radius of curb return
UPRR bridge abutments set
for ultimate six-lane facility
UPRR bridge
with ultimate
configuration to
match Sunset
Grade Separation
Reconstruct portion
of driveway to join
the lowered street
Maintain access to
Valley Food Service
and resident during
construction
Existing John Street –
to be vacated up to
realigned John Street
to east
Maintain drainage ditch
to east that connects
with Smith Creek
Potential barrier extension
along I-10 as requested
by Caltrans on the Sunset
Grade Separation
Opportunity: review traffic
circulation and access
around building and suggest
improvements, if needed
Provide
new curb
returns and
corner cut
Re-establish
access to alley
Partial acquisition for
widening of road
Provide connector
road to maintain
adequate fire access
Full property
acquisitions
Constraint: Lowered street
versus adjacent driveway/
fuel pumps
Solution: Shorten outbound
driveway and reconstruct up
to fuel pumps
Constraint: Lowered street
versus driveway/fuel pumps
Solution: Reconstruct portion
of driveway and join prior to
fuel pumps
Valley Food Service
Resident
Banning
Industrial
Park
Lincoln St
Hargrave St Hargrave St Plaza St John St Ramsey St
Opportunity: Shared accesss
to reduce impacts
Opportunity: Ground anchor
walls preferred by Caltrans
Opportunity: provide
secant pile walls
to reduce impact to
adjacent buildings
S
Opportunity: Investigate potential
shared path with bicyclist due to
bridge footings that limit area for
lowered road
10 Re-establish access around building
Opportunities and Constraints

BACK TO

RIGHT-OF-WAY
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 83
495

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
18 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
Lincoln St
Hargrave St Hargrave St Plaza St John St Ramsey St
10 UPRR

16.5’ MIN
Hargrave Street Plan and Profile
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 84
496

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 19
Hargrave Street and Connector Road – Typical Section South of UPRR Bridge EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 85
497

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 20

16.5’ Min
Vertical Clearance
Hargrave Street – Ultimate Section Under UPRR Bridge
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 86
498

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 21
Existing I-10
Bridge Abutment
Type 60MD barrier (typical)
Retaining wall (typical)
60’

9.5’ 13’ 11’ 13’ 9.5’
Hargrave Street – Typical Section Under I-10 Freeway
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 87
499

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 22
Rail Design
As mentioned previously, the Kimley-Horn team used the 3D drone data to engineer the relationship between the existing track elevations and the roadway concept profile. Our team is able to conclude that the existing track alignment (both horizontal and vertical) meets design standards and there is no need to raise or relocate the UPRR tracks. This approach accomplishes:

1. Simplified coordination
with UPRR.

2. Minimized disturbance of
UPRR Tracks.

3. Accelerated construction
of Railroad Bridge.

Similar to our other railroad projects, we will design shoofly tracks that satisfy UPRR design standards. The shoofly track construction and removal will represent the bulk of the work required within UPRR right-of-way.

Based on our initial evaluation, we have determined that the double shoofly tracks would be best routed to the north of the existing grade crossing. The benefits of constructing the shoofly tracks to the north include:

No impacts to
adjacent residents
along John Street.

This avoids the need
for a temporary sound
wall that would likely
present challenges
for removing.

Provides advantages
for construction
staging by allowing
the entire bridge to be
constructed adjacent
to the shoofly tracks.

Provides advantages
for construction
staging by combining
the bridge area
with the southerly
excavation and the
retaining walls to
Lincoln Street.

Maximizes time
that the freeway
interchange can
remain open for
access to the north.

Addresses drainage
issues that currently
existing between the
tracks and Caltrans
right-of-way.

Hargrave St
10 RR Bridge
Placing the shoofly tracks to the north takes advantage of available space and has many advantages over the south.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 88
500

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 23
Our concept has the advantage of avoiding the universal crossover by tying into the mainline tracks east of the point of switch and still maintaining or exceeding the minimum clearance to shoring at the bridge. As shown, much of the shoofly tracks to the east of the bridge can utilize a track shift of the existing mainline tracks to minimize procurement of track materials. We implemented this recently on our ACE Fullerton Grade Separation project and understand UPRR’s latest requirements for adjacent grading and allowable work windows for the shift.

In addition, there are existing drainage challenges on the north side of the tracks where runoff from culverts crossing the freeway are causing significant erosion in this area. This condition will be corrected with the shoofly tracks on the north by extending the existing track culverts and regrading for a more defined inlet condition. This can be left in place to improve drainage conditions within the UPRR right-of-way.

The existing hi-rail spur track to the north will be impacted by any shoofly configuration. UPRR will likely want to re-establish this upon removal of the shoofly tracks. If UPRR desires this to remain open during construction, there are options to permanently relocate the hi-rail spur track to the west of San Gorgonio.

On the Sunset Grade Separation, the UPRR decided to remove a similar track altogether which ultimately presented a cost savings.

See Rail Shoofly Exhibit on the following page.

Our team will look for cost-effective
ways to improve existing conditions. In
this case, our shoofly concept will also
correct a significant drainage issue
for UPRR.

Fitting shoofly tracks to the south would be challenging given the constrained space, especially with the raised track configuration, adjacent road/residents, and parallel drainage ditch.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 89
501

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
24 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
UPRR
R/W
UPRR
R/W
10’
100’ 100’
20’
Varies 33’ Min.
12’ Min. 21’ 20’
Per UPRR Shoring (Typ)
Requirements
20’
(Typ)
Shoofly 1 Shoofly 2 Mainline 1 Mainline 2 Future
Mainline
Lincoln St
Ramsey St
John St
San Gorgorino Ave
Hargrave St
10 Banning Airport
Exisiting UPRR R/W
Extend Culvert with
Drainage Improvements
Shoofly Grading Limit
Existing UPRR R/W
Existing Universal Crossover to Remain
Extend Culvert with
Drainage Improvements
Maintenance Road
Existing Ground
Temporary Steel Casing
5’-6” Column
90” DIA CIDH Pile
Grade Trackside Ditch Temporary Shoring
to Mitigate Flooding
Avoid Need to Extend Box Culvert
Begin Shoofly
End Shoofly
Shift Track Up to
13’ Clear Point
Shift Track Up to 13’ Clear Point
CL Shoofly Track 2
CL Shoofly Track 1
Curve No. 3
V = 50/40 (P/F)
Dc = 0°30’00”
Ea = 3/4”
Ls = 100’
Curve No. 1
V = 50/40 (P/F)
Dc = 1°00’00”
Ea = 3/4”
Ls = 100’
Curve No. 2
V = 50/40 (P/F)
Dc = 1°00’00”
Ea = 3/4”
Ls = 100’
CL Mainline 1
CL Mainline 2 Provide Adequate
Tangent Distance
from Crossover to
Beginning of Shoofly
A
Section A-A
A
Our team was able to gain approval from UPRR
for the similar Sunset Ave Railroad Bridge
Rail Shoofly Exhibit
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 90
502

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 25
Utilities
Based on our field walk, the RFP and other available information, we understand there are City sewer (15-inch) and water (14-inch), SoCal Gas (2-inch), and OH electric lines along Hargrave Street. We also understand there is a 20”/22” Kinder Morgan line along the UPRR right-of-way.

The challenge with the utility relocation strategy is related to construction staging in the constrained area with a desire to minimize roadway closures and increased construction costs. Our team has come up with two options.

We have a solid approach to your biggest utility challenge Option 1 – lower the sewer, water, and gas line in Hargrave Street. Since trenching depth are so deep, wider, stepped sections are required. The likely method would be to lower one side of the road under I-10 with shoring to protect the sewer line and place the new sewer, water and gas line within the lowered portion.

Excavate the other side and remove the old sewer line after cutovers are complete. This operation requires jack-and-bore under the active UPRR tracks and high-lining the water and gas lines. Closure of the interchange would be prolonged with this option. See Utility Relocation Options Exhibit at the end of the section.

Option 2 – consider a new utility relocation corridor that crosses under the I-10 freeway to the west of Hargrave Street to intercept the existing 15-inch sewer line paralleling I-10 from Franklin Street. It would require jack-and-bore under the freeway but could be less costly than lowering utilities in Hargrave Street.

It would also have less impacts on the community with shorter closure duration of the interchange than Option 1. The water line could be considered for jack-and-bore as well, but this has more flexibility for staging than the gravity sewer line and may not be needed. Our team recently received design approvals for a very similar situation on our Fullerton Grade Separation where we are using a UPRR minimum carrier pipe size of 30-inches for a 12-inch sewer line spanning the UPRR right-of-way. Our team will use this recent experience to expedite approvals. See Utility Relocation Options Exhibit at the end of the section.

Overhead Utility Lines
The Sunset Grade Separation project required early coordination with City Electric for relocation of major transmission lines along the west side of the street. Similarly, this early coordination and relocation will be required for the overhead lines along the west side of Hargrave Street. This facility can also be placed within the connector road between John Street and Plaza Street.

We’ve coordinated with all major utility companies
in the project area, reducing risks and costs.

Our team designed sewer and reclaimed water lines for the City on the Sunset Grade Separation. We have also successfully coordinated with all the major utility companies in the project area for the I-10 Bypass project including Kinder Morgan, City Electric, SCE, and SoCal Gas. This experience will help us reduce project risks and provide cost savings on Hargrave.

Utility contacts and working
knowledge established by the
Kimley-Horn team on the I-10
Bypass and Sunset Grade
Separation projects will help
reduce project risks and present
cost savings for the Hargrave
Grade Separation.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 91
503

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 26
Kinder Morgan Line
Based on our experience with Kinder Morgan lines within railroad right-of-way, the likely solution is to relocate this line to go under the lowered Hargrave Street.

One of the largest challenges
with third party utility companies
is getting their participation in a
timely manner. The Kimley-Horn
team offers a unique advantage
with this, as our team will be
working with the same utility
companies for relocations within
the adjacent tribal lands. This
includes Kinder Morgan, SCE,
SoCal Gas, and others. Not
only will our team have current
working relationships, but we
will be in a unique position to
consider bigger picture solutions,
either temporary or permanent,
which will benefit the project.

Kimley-Horn is currently contracted with Kinder Morgan to provide designs for relocations of their facilities very similar to what will be necessary on the Hargrave Grade Separation. We are currently doing this for a project in Arizona to go under a large drainage wash. Similar to this project, we anticipate doing a directional bore to lower the facility. This includes angling down on each side and maintaining a radius larger than 2,400 feet under the grade separation area.

Legend
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Gas Transmission Pipelines
10 E Lincoln St
E Ramsey St
Hargrave St
Kimley-Horn has staff who work directly with Kinder Morgan and will help our team coordinate and obtain approvals for relocation of the 20-inch oil line.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 92
504

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
27 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
2230
2250
2280
2310
2230
2250
2280
2310
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

UTILITY RELOCATION CONCEPT
Existing 15”
Sewer Line
Existing Sewer Lateral
Existing
Sewer
Lateral
Existing
Sewer
Lateral
Jack and Bore under
I-10 Freeway
Option 2 –
15” Sewer Line
Relocation
Existing 15”
Sewer Line
Existing Ground
Note: Options 1 and 2 appear to have adequate fall to maintain positive flow Existing 15” Sewer Line
Existing 6”
Sewer Line
Existing 4”
Water Line
Existing 8”
Sewer Line
Existing 8”
Sewer Line
Existing 18”
Reinforced
Concrete
Box Culvert
Existing 8” Sewer Line
Existing 2”
Gas SCGC Proposed 2”
Gas SCGC
Proposed 2” Gas SCGC
Option 1 –
15” Sewer Line
Relocation
Option 1 – 15” Sewer Line Relocation Proposed Hargrave Street Proposed 15” Sewer Line
Proposed 14”
Water Line
Proposed 14” Water Line
Lincoln St
Lincoln St
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
Hargrave St
Hargrave St
Plaza St
John St
UPRR
UPRR Crossing
Ramsey Street Ramsey St
Option 1 – Section A-A
A
A
10 10
Manhole
(MH)
Existing MH
Utility Relocation Options
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 93
505

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 28
Drainage
Our team understands the nature of runoff in the Pass Area that generally flows to the south crossing under I-10 and routing within natural and graded ditches within railroad right-of-way. We evaluated this on the Sunset Grade Separation, and most recently at the Pennsylvania Grade Crossing in Beaumont. We are familiar with UPRR’s latest standards and requirements for drainage and cross culverts as the Pennsylvania Avenue project required several new culverts in UPRR right-of-way. This included a new culvert crossing under the mainline double tracks using jack-and-bore method.

These photos were taken during the large storm event in 2010 when Kimley-Horn started evaluating constraints for the Hargrave Grade Separation. Note the significant runoff upstream at Ramsey Street that ponds on the north side of the grade crossing.

In addition, our team performed a hydrology and hydraulic analysis of Smith Creek and the San Gorgonio River as part of the I-10 Bypass Drainage Study. This required analysis of the tributary area for the Hargrave Grade Separation area for the runoff going to the east adjacent to John Street and around the airport (referred to as Ramsey Street Drain system on the FEMA map).

Similar to the Sunset Grade Separation, we propose avoiding a pump station and extending a storm drain to the south. Based on as-bult plans dated 1991 and 2005, Line G along Hargrave Street extends from the outlet at Smith Creek up to Lincoln Street where it is plugged for future extension/buildout. Line G currently has active catch basins between Smith Creek and Charles Street. The portion from Smith Creek to Westward Avenue is maintained by RCFC & WCD, while the remaining portion up to Lincoln Street is maintained by the City.

Since the new sump for the grade separation will be lower than Line G at Lincoln Street, we anticipate needing a parallel system that maintains positive flow from the sump. This will extend to Barbour Street and join to the existing 36-inch RCP (City maintained portion).

We have tackled a wide range of drainage challenges in the Pass Area Our team’s extensive knowledge of the Pass Area’s runoff patterns, coupled with our recent experience conducting drainage studies for the I-10 Bypass project, puts us in a strong position to address the drainage challenges on Hargrave.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 94
506

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 29
Since the new sump area will collect runoff from the interchange and the railroad right-of-way to the west, it is possible that Line G will not have the capacity for the design storm event. If that is the case, the parallel storm drain could be evaluated to extend further south to a larger pipe section or underground storage could be provided at the sump area to detain the additional runoff so that the system can handle the design storm event. Our team implemented this concept on the 17th Street Grade Separation project in the City of Santa Ana. The concept includes a level of water quality treatment combined with underground detention.

If Line G cannot handle the runoff area coming from the sump, underground storage could be considered below the sump area on Hargrave Street. The diagram above shows optional pairing with water quality treatment. Our team implemented this approach on the 17th Street Grade Separation project in Santa Ana.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 95
507

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 30
Structures
I-10 Hargrave Undercrossing Modification
The existing Hargrave Street Undercrossing was originally constructed in 1954, widened to the inside in 1965, and then widened to the outside in 1968. The 1968 outside widening considered the future lowering of Hargrave Street under this structure by lowering the south side foundations of the widening 12 feet below the adjacent original structure foundations. Even with this future forethought the profile necessary to lower Hargrave Street and provide the required vertical clearance under the proposed overhead structure, while also providing the required cross section for vehicles, bicyclist, and pedestrians is difficult.

This profile will result in a finished grade below a portion of the original 1954 spread footings, requiring the construction of a ground anchor wall, located in front of these footings, to provide support both vertically and laterally. The north 1968 widening is expected to have sufficient cover over the top of the footings to provide the necessary lateral support, but a small soldier pile wall will be required to support the pedestrian walkway with their vertical elements located in between the pile foundation.

The footing of the 1968 widening on the south side of the structure extends out the furthest at 6’-3” from the face of the abutment. This is the pinch point for the cross section that sets the location for the walls and limits space for traffic lanes. Vertical soldier pile elements will have to be positioned between the front battered pile and if necessary, ground anchors will be installed to provide lateral support.

This approach with carefully spaced pile elements and ground anchors is consistent with what Caltrans accepted on the Sunset Grade Separation. The construction method involves slot-cutting and CIDH pile placement before the road is excavated to assure the existing bridge footings are secure.

See I-10 Undercrossing Structure exhibit at the end of this section.

Grade Separation
The proposed grade separation will be located south of the I-10 freeway approximately 275 ft. south of the I-10 alignment. The grade separation will carry the existing UPRR double tracks over Hargrave Street and will provide for a future Hargrave Street geometry that will provide for three 12-foot lanes in each direction, one 12-foot median, two 6-foot shoulders and two 6-foot sidewalks. Columns that support the structure are anticipated to be located in the 12-foot median. With this geometry and high seat abutments located adjacent to the sidewalk, the result is a two-span structure with two equal spans of approximately 55’-5” each.

The grade separation will have an anticipated width of approximately 80 feet and will provide for the two existing UPRR tracks as well as a future track and maintenance road similar to what our team provided on the Sunset Grade Separation. The structure will cross Hargrave Street at a slight skew of approximately five degrees.

Our “Top-Down” construction method minimizes community impacts Our team designed the railroad bridge and tieback walls on the Sunset GS. We know the challenges posed by the existing I-10 structures in the Pass Area including potential construction impacts. For Hargrave, we recommend a “Top-Down” construction approach to minimize impacts to the community.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 96
508

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 31
Based on the anticipated span lengths provided above, two superstructure types have been identified as suitable for this structure and include rolled steel girders; and precast prestressed concrete adjacent box beam girders. The UPRR Grade Separation Guidelines Section 6.9.1 identify both of these structure types as being suitable for use but prefer the use of the rolled steel girders with steel plate deck. Once the geometry of the structure is finalized, a Type Selection Report will be prepared to evaluate each structure type and provide a recommendation.

Top-Down Method
The Top-Down construction method would use a secant pile style wall for the construction of the abutments.

This abutment style would utilize two different pile sizes that would intersect each other with a smaller diameter unreinforced pile and a larger diameter reinforced pile making up the cantilevered abutments and adjacent walls that will support the existing track. The benefit of this style of abutment is that it can be constructed from the top down, resulting in little to no shoring being required for the construction of these abutments.

The construction of the bent could also be completed from the existing grade using a similar top-down method. For the bent construction a temporary shoring box around the limits of the bent cap and temporary steel casings that would extend to below the level of the top of the pile foundations will be used. Use of these elements would allow for the construction of the larger diameter concrete piles, concrete columns and concrete bent cap with limited excavation, and shoring adjacent to the active shoofly tracks.

Once the bents and abutments are completed, the superstructure, with either rolled steel girder with steel deck plat or precast prestressed concrete girders could be placed. Once this is complete, the track can be reestablished back on its original alignment on the new structure. After the track is reopened on the structure then the excavation of Hargrave Street under the structure could begin.

This Top-Down construction method has the benefit to construct the bent and abutments without tall and expensive shoring directly adjacent to the active shoofly tracks.

Retaining Walls
For retaining walls adjacent to the I-10 Undercrossing structure within Caltrans right-of-way, we generally anticipate a Caltrans style standard Type 1 Retaining Wall. For the large retaining walls to the south of the railroad bridge along Hargrave Street adjacent to existing development, we anticipate a similar secant pile wall configuration using top-down construction as described above for the railroad abutments. For shorter walls to the south, it is generally more cost-effective to go with Caltrans style Type 1 Retaining Walls or similar cast-in-place walls.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 97
509

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
32 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024

9.5’
39’
60’

9.5’

9.5’
2’
39’
60’

9.5’
39’
60’
39’
Section A-A
Section B-B
Section C-C
Plan View
Existing Bridge Foundations
Proposed Ground Anchor Walls
A
B
C
A
B
C
I-10 Undercrossing Structure
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 98
510

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 33
Construction Staging
The key to construction staging is to minimize impacts to residents and businesses while optimizing the ability for a contractor to accelerate construction since additional time has more impacts on the community, typically results in higher bids, as well as poses a higher risk for claims and change orders. At this time, residents are the larger concern (versus businesses) as the southeast side of the city is primarily single-family homes and the residents are outspoken. Many have relocated to the Pass Area to avoid heavy traffic and congestion, and generally oppose projects if they believe they will result in increased traffic.

Depending on timing, the planned developments in the airport redevelopment area and surrounding area could present an increased need to address significant truck traffic. This is also a concern of the residents in the area as they are sensitive to truck traffic cutting through their neighborhoods creating increased noise and pollution.

Given that there are multiple traffic rerouting options to the west of Hargrave Street, construction staging will likely be able to consider a closure of Hargrave Street between the UPRR tracks and Lincoln Street for an extended period of time. Our team’s strategy will be to find the ideal balance for a street shutdown that minimizes impacts to the community while maximizing the contractor’s efficiency to complete the work.

If traffic forecast numbers come in higher than expected or if other concerns arise, such as response times for emergency vehicles through the adjacent detour routes, then a temporary detour road adjacent to Hargrave Street could be studied. This could be constructed just to the west of the excavation where the full property acquisitions are occurring. It would likely have additional impacts to properties, require a temporary grade crossing, and present challenges at the eastbound ramp intersection since the freeway bridge abutment is directly adjacent.

The work to the north at the interchange to lower Hargrave Street and the ramps will typically take less time than the work to the south that involves construction of the bridge, approach walls, and road lowering. For this reason, the interchange work can be overlapped with the south end work to minimize closures of both Hargrave Street and the interchange. Note that for the interchange work, the eastbound ramps can be closed first so the westbound ramps can remain open similar to how our team staged the Sunset Grade Separation.

See Construction Staging exhibit on the following page which demonstrates the basic stages with timeline.

We will minimize community impacts and schedule delays—saving you money The closure of Hargrave Street between the UPRR tracks and Lincoln Street has the potential to save approximately $20M and reduce the construction duration by 12 months.

If a closure of Hargrave Street
between the UPRR tracks and Lincoln
Street is feasible, this will save the
project approximately $20M and 12
months of construction duration.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 99
511

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
34 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
Lincoln St
Hargrave St
Plaza St
John St
Ramsey St
10 Phase Location Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Phase 1 Area 1 2 Months Property Demolition/Clearing
Phase 2 All 8 Months Utility Relocations (Assumes Option 2 Sewer Relocation to the west) Phase 3 Area 1 6 Months Construct Shoofly Tracks
HARGRAVE STREET CLOSURE = 15 MONTHS
Phase 4 Area 1 Close Hargrave Street South of I-10 Interchange = 10 Months 9 Months Bridge and Wall Construction South of I-10 Interchange Phase 5 Area 1 6 Months Excavate and Construct Roadway South of I-10 Interchange UPRR Operations on New Bridge
Phase 6 Area 2
Close Eastbound I-10
Interchange Ramps
4 Months Lower Eastbound Ramps
Phase 7 Area 2 Potential to Open Eastbound Ramps for Access to/from the South 9 Months Construct Walls Under Freeway and Lower Roadway Phase 8 Area 3
Close Westbound I-10
Interchange Ramps
4 Months Finish Walls, Lower Westbound Ramps,
Finish Hargrave Street Up to Ramsey Street
Open Westbound I-10 Interchange Ramps
TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION = 27 MONTHS
= Task
= Construction Phase Duration
= Closure
= Open
Hargrave St
Construction Staging
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 100
512

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 35
Aesthetics
The Kimley-Horn team is excited to partner with the City in developing an aesthetic theme for the grade separation that truly captures the character and scenic beauty of Banning. Drawing from our successful approach to aesthetics on the Sunset Grade Separation, we will propose cost-effective features that instill a sense of pride in the community. This will greatly enhance the redevelopment area and its adjacent residential communities.

Situated in the heart of Banning, the Hargrave grade separation presents an opportunity to not only improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation, but also create a memorable experience for residents and visitors passing through this gateway. We have developed concepts on the following pages which showcase unique themes the City may consider incorporating into the grade separation retaining walls, railway barrier fencing, and pedestrian barrier fencing. Working closely with City staff, City Council, and the public, we are prepared to further develop these concepts or create new ones to create a welcoming and visually striking Gateway to Redevelopment, one that celebrates the City’s rich heritage.

Our aesthetics will reflect Banning’s scenic beauty, creating a memorable gateway to redevelopment.

Drawing inspiration from Banning’s surrounding mountains and unique landscape, we will work closely with RCTC, the City, and community leaders to develop aesthetics that truly reflect the culture and spirit of Banning.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 101
513

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 36
HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA 10/24/2024

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

INTEGRAL COLOR CONTRETE RETAINING WALL PANELS

LIGHT SANDBLAST FINISH
STAINLESS STEEL ‘SNOW CAP’

ACCENT, PIN MOUNTED

CORTEN STEEL MOUNTAIN RANGE

ACCENT, LASER CUT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
San Gorgonio Retaining Wall Theme – Aesthetic Concept
The City of Banning is situated in the picturesque San Gorgonio Pass between two significant mountain peaks, Mount San Gorgonio (to the north) and Mount San Jacinto (to the south). The aesthetic design features in this rendering showcases the snowcapped peaks of San Gorgonio Mountain, or Old Greyback, the highest peak in Southern California.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 102
514

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 37
HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA 10/24/2024

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

INTEGRAL COLOR CONTRETE RETAINING WALL PANELS

LIGHT SANDBLAST FINISH
STAINLESS STEEL ‘SNOW CAP’

ACCENT, PIN MOUNTED

CORTEN STEEL MOUNTAIN RANGE

ACCENT, LASER CUT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
San Jacinto Retaining Wall Theme – Aesthetic Concept
This rendering beautifully showcases the mountain and desert landscapes of San Jacinto Mountain, highlighting its topographical prominence.

These aesthetic wall treatments enhance both grade separation retaining walls and can be appreciated by travelers in either direction—this is where the “sense of place” comes to life.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 103
515

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 38
HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA 10/24/2024

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE

METAL FENCING SCREEN

SAN GORGONIO PASS

PERFORATED COLORED METAL MOUNTAIN VISTAS SILHOUETTE

FENCE PANEL METAL RAILS AND POSTS

FOCAL CALIFORNIA POPPY LANDSCAPE

COLORED METAL ACCENT
Railway Barrier Fencing – Aesthetic Concept
The foothills boast iconic California features, offering a glimpse into the California landscape. The aesthetic design in this rendering celebrates the California State Flower, the California Poppy.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 104
516

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 39
VES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA 10

RIAN BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE
COLUMN

STAINLESS STEEL CALIFORNIA QUAIL ACCENT

METAL RAIL AND POST FENCING

STAINLESS STEEL CABLES

CORTEN STEEL CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE ACCENT
Pedestrain Barrier Fencing – Aesthetic Concept
The aesthetic design in this rendering highlights the key natural and plant elements of the desert landscape, and the California State Bird, the California Quail, creating a serene and secure environment for pedestrians to enjoy.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 105
517

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 40
Freeway Ramp Aesthetics
The aesthetic features of the Hargrave Grade Separation project are truly a celebration of the best aspects of Banning. They create a visually stunning display for both motorists and pedestrians passing through the gateway. Landscaping will play a vital role in seamlessly integrating the desert’s drought-tolerant landscape into the project, with accent boulders inspired by the nearby foothills adding visual interest. This project will greatly enhance the community by honoring the area’s unique setting, providing an attractive connection for vehicles and pedestrians, and celebrating the community’s resilience and commitment to embracing new enhancements in the “City of Endless Opportunity”.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 106
518

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN GORGONIO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 41
Hargrave Street Rendering showing Aesthetic Opportunities EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 107
519

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 42

3. Environmental
The Kimley-Horn team includes the same staff who have worked with the City on many projects in the past, and most recently obtained NEPA compliance for a Complex EA on the adjacent I-10 Bypass project. Our experience and deep knowledge of the project area will result in efficiencies and the ability to expedite the schedule.

This project is anticipated to be a Statutory Exemption (SE) under CEQA and a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under NEPA. The City will be the CEQA lead agency and will require our assistance in preparing a Notice of Exemption (NOE). As outlined in the RFP, the lead agency for NEPA will be Caltrans. As noted in Article 4, Subtask 2.1, of the Grant Agreement with the FRA, the lead agency for NEPA will be the FRA and they would determine appropriate class of action. Caltrans has jurisdiction over the impacted I-10 Freeway ramps and will need to approve work performed in their right-of-way regardless of the NEPA lead. The FRA may delegate the NEPA lead to Caltrans since they are already involved. This occurred on the Colton Crossing project for which our team member, LSA, led the environmental. The other possibility is that FRA is the NEPA lead and the City and the Kimley-Horn team complete all NEPA documentation consistent with FRA guidance. Our team would work with both Caltrans and FRA to prepare the technical documentation using a single acceptable format. We will help the City confirm the NEPA lead at the beginning of the project so the proper format and processing of environmental technical studies is known.

The following summarizes the primary environmental disciplines which will require technical studies and the approach our team will take.

Traffic Studies - Our teaming partner, LSA, has assisted the City with traffic analysis for previous general plan updates; helped update the traffic fee component of the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program; and understands the General Plan Street System. LSA also helped the Kimley-Horn team with the traffic modeling for the redistribution of traffic on the I-10 Bypass project, which impacts traffic circulation along Hargrave Street.

Our approach is to use this knowledge and extensive data to provide adjacent project coordination and make critical design decisions based on the temporary and ultimate traffic conditions planned for the area.

Our NEPA approvals are efficient and quick
Our expertise in Caltrans and FRA-Led NEPA processes, along with deep knowledge of the project area, will help ensure efficient and quick NEPA approvals. We secured NEPA approvals for the Sunset Grade Separation in just six months. We also obtained NEPA approvals for the I-10 Bypass.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 108
520

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 43
The information our team has on the project intersections, such as these for the Banning Fee Program, will present a cost savings and assure coordination with other City programs.

In addition, an effective Transportation Management Plan (TMP) is needed to address traffic conditions during construction. For detouring around the project area, local traffic not accessing the freeway can be routed to San Gorgonio Avenue. Traffic accessing the freeway can be routed to 8th Street. If peak hour volumes are excessive at 8th Street, the detour can be extended to 22nd Street or even alternate at Sunset Avenue. Our team already has a traffic analysis of these intersections as part of the I-10 Bypass studies and will just need to obtain new traffic counts for updates.

Understanding the unique situations in the City will result in better solutions and help reduce City staff efforts. Our team has history in the area and will serve as an extension of City staff. One example is the temporary detour route along Lincoln Street. The City is concerned about impacts to pavement along this route as well as assuring safe pedestrian access with the additional traffic and paths that high school students use near the intersection with 8th Street.

Our team’s knowledge of the area will
help reduce City staff time as we will
truly serve as an extension of your staff.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 109
521

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 44
Safety and pavement condition are concerns for detour routes. This aerial photo shows the trail used by High School students between Barbour Avenue and Lincoln Street for access to the other side of I-10. Our team will propose project features to assure pedestrian safety as part of the TMP.

Cultural Studies - We will provide a routine Historic Property Survey Report (PSR) including an ASR, HRER, Native American Consultation, and associated documentation of coordination efforts pursuant to AB 52. Due to the deep excavations, there is a potential for paleontological impacts. To address this, we will provide a Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER).

Biological Studies - While the project site is located within the Western Riverside Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WR-MSHCP), based on our experience in this area and review of the WR-MSHCP, there is a concern for riverine/riparian habitat and downstream impacts in the Coachella Valley MSHCP related to sediment transport.

The drainage area that flows to the east along John Street/UPRR and then to the south into Smith Creek was studied extensively for our I-10 Bypass project. Additionally, our latest understanding of the airport redevelopment area as well as the Morongo Section 12 (west) development is that this natural channel through the respective properties will be maintained/protected.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 110
522

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 45
We will minimize impacts to this drainage with the Hargrave Grade Separation and point out the primary source of flow which is the Ramsey Street Storm Drain. The objective is to show the wildlife agencies that the Hargrave Grade Separation will not result in impacts to sediment transport along this drainage based on the relatively minimal runoff contributing to this drainage from the project area (i.e. the majority is coming from the Ramsey Street Storm Drain).

There is the potential for the presence of
habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia),
Marvin’s onion (Allium marvinii) and manystemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) due to project’s proximity to survey areas identified
in the MSHCP. Early coordination with the
Western Riverside Regional Conservation
Authority (RCA) and the resource/regulatory
agencies will confirm the level of analysis to
be completed to demonstrate compliance
with the MSHCP and identify appropriate
mitigation, if required.

Air Quality - As an exempt project we
generally anticipate planning the benefits
to air quality as it relates to removal of a
grade crossing and associated idling traffic.

Additionally, the project is exempt from
conformity under 40 CFR 93.126 (Railroad/
Highway Crossing) as a grade separation
that does not change the number of through lanes and does not change the channelization or signalization status of intersections at either end. Kimley-Horn will develop an air quality report consistent with the Caltrans SER to analyze the project’s construction and operational air quality impacts and document that the project is exempt from federal conformity.

Noise and Vibration - Sensitive noise receptors generally exist in the southwest quadrant residential area.

If the temporary shoofly tracks are constructed to the south of the mainline tracks closer to the residential area, there is a high likelihood that the noise threshold limits will be exceeded. This could result in a temporary noise wall that will likely be an attractive permanent feature by the local residents.

Our concept puts the shoofly tracks on the north side of the mainline tracks and will avoid noise and vibration impacts to the residents. This will also prevent the need for temporary or permanent sound walls.

The proposed project is considered a Type I project according to 23 CFR 772 and the Caltrans Noise Protocol because the grade separation consists of a vertical alteration. Therefore, a Noise Study Report following the Caltrans SER will be required. Kimley-Horn will prepare a work plan and coordinate with Caltrans District 8 noise staff to ensure the noise measurement locations and modeling assumptions are acceptable and to streamline the review process.

Our team has useful information on this drainage area that flows east and then south into Smith Creek.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 111
523

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 46
Hazardous Materials - The Kimley-Horn team will conduct a routine Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for the project area. Potential concerns are leaky underground storage tank (LUST) sites associated with the gas stations to the north as well as typical hazardous materials found within railroad right-of-way. The ISA will evaluate the potential for impacts to the project area from users along Hargrave Street and the rail corridor.

Our team documented similar sites within the area as part of the I-10 bypass project.

Water Quality - The project area is contained entirely within the Whitewater River Watershed, which is part of the Colorado River Basin, with the nearest receiving waters being Smith Creek. Our team is familiar with the requirements of this watershed through our recent environmental work on the I-10 Bypass project, which showed that there are no existing or proposed Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for any of the receiving waters within the project area.

Compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit will be a dual process.

Caltrans will require a Stormwater Data Report (SWDR) to comply with the MS4 Permit for work within their right-of-way. For the City portion, compliance with the Whitewater River Watershed MS4, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required for Priority Development Projects. Since the grade separation project does not fit within one of the seven categories established in the guidance, a WQMP is technically not required; however, the MS4 Permit does require the project implement BMPs to the Maximum Extend Practical (MEP). Additionally, a Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) that follows the Caltrans December 2022 Water Quality Assessment Report Content and Recommended Format is proposed for work within the Caltrans right-of-way to support the DEER.

Based on the constrained project site, we will not be able to implement infiltration or larger scale bio-treatment. Instead, we will consider proprietary devices within Hargrave Street that treat pollutants from the paved surfaces (such as a Filterra system). We also anticipate providing measures to prevent erosion, such as rip-rap or rock slope protection, grading, and lined ditches/channels where appropriate. All of these features will be discussed with City staff to confirm the ability to provide maintenance.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 112
524

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 47

4. Right-of-Way
Our team has a thorough and in depth understanding of the right-of-way elements for the project. These can be divided into different categories with our approach and implementation for each described below. For all right-of-way processing, we are keenly aware and familiar with the requirements for Caltrans Right-of-Way Certification which is a prerequisite to construction contract advertising and award.

The following describes our approach to each impacted property. The proposed features described are also shown on the Opportunities and Constraints exhibit provided in the Roadway Design section.

Commercial Properties
There are four impacted commercial properties. This includes the two gas stations (Arco, Mobil) with convenience stores at the intersection of Ramsey Street and Hargrave Street. The Mobil service station appears to be undergoing a rebranding. This site also has a Churches Chicken restaurant associated with its operation. Additionally impacted are the Banning Industrial Park and Valley Food Service properties.

Among the most challenging parcels is the Arco station on the southwest corner of Hargrave Street and Ramsey Street. The challenge is the profile grade versus the existing driveway and the directly adjacent fuel pumps. This leaves very little room for grade changes associated with the lowering of Hargrave Street.

Rest assured that a concerted effort will be made to limit the interruption to business operations during and subsequent to construction, as well as limit the potential for a Loss of Business Goodwill claim – which in California is quite common. Communication and coordination with the owner/operator will take place to confirm petroleum and sundry delivery schedules to the site with the goal of maintaining a “window” providing maximum ingress/egress during construction.

Based upon site visits and accurate 3D data obtained by a drone scan flyover, we have determined that narrowing the southerly Arco station driveway on Hargrave Street will result in the ability to maintain outbound vehicular circulation and thereby minimize severance damages to the parcel. The driveway design will also enable continued usage of all existing fuel dispensers. Integrated in the design for this parcel will be improved circulation patterns around the primary building to assist with fuel delivery truck movements and vehicle movements in general. Designing and demonstrating a reconfiguration that works puts the City in a position that minimizes exposure for claims associated with Business Interruption, severance damages, and the aforementioned Loss of Business Goodwill.

The Mobile station on the east side of Hargrave Street has more room and the driveways can be reprofiled and lowered with adequate space to slope to the fuel dispensers. This property is similar to the Chevron station on the Sunset Grade Separation with respect to required grade changes adjacent to the fuel pumps.

The Banning Industrial Park also presents challenges due to the building located directly adjacent to the proposed retaining walls and a commercial driveway with truck loading dock roll up doors at 90 degrees to the subject driveway. The design concept we discussed with the City includes protecting the existing building with construction of a secant pile wall and shifting access to the south to be shared with Valley Food Service Our ROW experts ensure compliance and secure certification Our team successfully processed right-of-way needs for 14 grade separations projects including the Sunset GS. One of our team members is a former Caltrans HQ Chief of Real Estate and will help ensure overall compliance and secure the right-of-way certification.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 113
525

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 48
and a residential property. This design solution maintains direct access to Hargrave Street and incorporates a reciprocal easement between the users of the maintained driveway which is quite common with a shared ingress/egress point.

Our initial approach is to investigate the potential for the airport redevelopment limits to extend and include this complex. If it does, there could be a cost savings with the building removed prior to construction of the project. If this does not occur, we will meet with the three property owners to explain how common use, security, and maintenance of the shared driveway will be accomplished. All information learned from property owners and/or tenants will be considered and evaluated as a means to optimize design and efficiency.

Modifications for the Valley Food Service property include the new shared access agreement for its existing northerly driveway and design of the existing southerly driveway apron which will align to the new gradient of Hargrave Street.

Residential Properties
All impacted residential properties are south of the UPRR railroad right-of-way. Four properties are impacted on the west side of Hargrave Street and two on the east side. Both of the east side properties are adjacent northerly and southerly to the Valley Food Service property. The one to the north will need the changed access that will be shared with Valley Food Service and Banning Industrial Park as previously described. The second property is on the northeast corner of Hargrave Street and Lincoln Street and will require partial acquisition to accommodate the widened road, and a temporary construction easement to construct the project.

Two single family residential properties on the west side of Hargrave Street will require full acquisition to connect John Street with Plaza Street. We understand that the City is already advancing one of those acquisitions on the vacant lot. The other will require valuation and acquisition along with a State required Relocation Plan addressing the details and accommodations as it pertains to the displacement of the residential occupant. State and Federal regulation required relocation advisory services and assistance will be administered to the displaced occupant(s), as appropriate.

The remaining two properties on the west side of Hargrave Street closest to Lincoln Street will require partial right-of-way acquisitions to accommodate the widening of Hargrave Steet, and a temporary construction easement to accommodate construction of the project.

Caltrans Right-of-Way
The approach with Caltrans (District 8) right-of-way is to keep the ramp improvements within the existing State right-of-way and thereby have no acquisitions – permanent or temporary. Similar to the Sunset Grade Separation, we have determined that there exists adequate space to construct the project. As a result, the request of Caltrans is that an encroachment permit be issued at the end of the DEER process to address temporary access for construction. Any permanent or temporary right-of-way acquisition involving Caltrans on- or off-system land has the potential to “kick” the project out of the DEER process. There are a host of reasons, the least of which is extended time and uncertainty that is introduced if this were to occur.

Accordingly, the project design parameters and limits will avoid this pitfall.

Our team uses 3D perspectives to show
property owners what the final condition
will look like. This visualization typically
has a positive impact and helps with
negotiations.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 114
526

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 49
UPRR Right-of-Way
Similar to the approach with Caltrans right-of-way, there should be no acquisition of UPRR right-of-way. The established relationships our team has with UPRR personnel in Operations, Real Estate, Maintenance, etc. will serve to expedite all necessary measures (flagging, coordination, design approval, etc.) that will need to take place. The new grade separation crossing of UPRR right-of-way is addressed with agreements, typically in the form of a Maintenance and Operations Agreement. It is anticipated that retaining wall touchdown points and footings will be designed and accepted by UPRR and ultimately referenced and memorialized in said agreement(s). If the UPRR wishes to address matters differently, we have ample experience in these dealings and will endeavor to provide the least costly, most time efficient, and prudent manner in accommodating the UPRR.

City Street Right-of-Way
The right-of-way for the widened Hargrave Street will be obtained through the acquisition of permanent roadway easements as indicated for the properties previously mentioned. A new roadway and utility easement will be needed for the new connector road between John Street and Plaza Street. Our team will work closely with the City to assist with incorporating the newly constructed road into the City’s system of roads as well as provide recorded instruments (rights) to utility companies that have been relocated as part of the project.

In addition, our team is experienced with municipal street vacations and will coordinate closely with the City so that an official and proper vacation of a portion of John Street, east of Hargrave Street up to the newly constructed John Street, is carried out efficiently – if it is determined to be the most appropriate course of action.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 115
527

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 50

5. Coordination, Agreements & Permits
Caltrans Approvals
For approvals within Caltrans right-of-way, we anticipate the new Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER) process. This replaced the previous Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) process which we implemented on the Sunset Grade Separation. The Kimley-Horn team is one of the first in the state to implement the newer DEER process and we are currently implementing this process on four other projects in Southern California. We also led Caltrans approvals for the McKinley Grade Separation with Caltrans District 8 and the Fullerton Grade Separation with Caltrans District 7. The key to our strategy is keeping within the DEER process to prevent the project from being put into full oversight. This is determined through the DEER Checklist. The Hargrave Grade Separation will have no problems maintaining the first five criteria in the checklist. The challenge will be item no. 6 for the walls under I-10 that cannot be designed per Caltrans Standard Plans. The similar tie-back walls that our team designed for the Sunset Grade Separation were able to remain under the PEER process at that time. Our team had a similar situation come up recently with the DEER process on another project and were able to obtain an exception from Caltrans Headquarters.

We will discuss this issue early in the process with Caltrans and point out the similar exceptions they have given on other projects. Our knowledge of the new process, and similar situations we have successfully navigated through with District 8 staff, will lead to a solution that maintains the planned scope and schedule of the project.

Design Engineering Evaluation Report Application Checklist No. Criteria (as it pertains to Hargrave GS) True False Notes 1 Maintain Environmental SE/CE  Only provide features needed for grade separation 2 Single Build Alternative  Required for SE/CE
3 No CTC Action  No impacts to mainline I-10
4 No Caltrans R/W Conveyance  Keep lowered ramps within existing right-of-way 5 No FHWA Approvals  Maintain existing access points to I-10 6 No Structures that are not per Caltrans Standard Plans  Walls under I-10 for Hargrave lowering Risk: being kicked out of the DEER process based on Item No. 6.

Solution: Leverage our experience and knowledge of the new DEER process to obtain an exception and remain on schedule. Coordinate this with Caltrans early during the Concept Development stage and emphasize schedule constraints and project benefits, similar to our successful approach on the Sunset Grade Separation.

We are well-versed in Caltrans’ new process
Our team’s unmatched knowledge of Caltrans’ new DEER process and strong relationships with District 8 staff will help us maintain the scope and stay ahead of schedule.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 116
528

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 51
FRA Approvals
The Kimley-Horn team routinely processes projects through the FRA for approvals; we know their process and expectations. This involves grant funding compliance as well as NEPA Compliance if led by the FRA.

NEPA compliance for a Categorical Exclusion (CE) with the FRA requires environmental technical study approvals similar to what Caltrans requires when they take the lead on NEPA as delegated from FHWA.

UPRR and CPUC Approvals
Our team routinely provides coordination with UPRR for approvals using a proven approach. We work through Nick Vineyard, the UPRR Area Manager, to obtain design approvals and other necessary coordination.

Nick will provide comments and obtain input from his groups in Omaha including track, grading/drainage, structures and utilities/right-of-way. Our team already has insights of the types of comments and timeline from UPRR based on our recent work on our Metrolink projects and the ACE Fullerton Grade Separation currently in construction—this is part of Kimley-Horn’s core practice which will assure coordination with design disciplines and maintain urgency.

Examples of Kimley-Horn team’s current and past UPRR approvals:

1. Metrolink Simi Double Tracking (Nick Vineyard) – shared corridor with UPRR right-of-way for one track, five grade crossings, UPRR siding, industry spur track, and shared right-of-way at station platform.

2. Fullerton Grade Separation (Nick Vineyard) – raise UPRR double mainline tracks 8.5 feet, provide double mainline shoofly tracks.

3. Sunset Grade Separation (Kenneth Tom) – raise UPRR double mainline tracks 2.5 feet, provide double mainline shoofly tracks.

Similarly, our core staff routinely coordinates with the CPUC for similar GO88-B approvals which will be required for the Hargrave Grade Separation. In the project area, this involves Utilities Engineer, Sergio Licon. Our team has prepared five GO88-B applications for nearby projects in just the last 12 months. We will bring the CPUC in early with the virtual diagnostic meeting and then followed by the formal field diagnostic meeting. Through our Metrolink work, we have developed a process to obtain “informal” input from the CPUC on the GO-88B documents before the formal submittal which occurs later in the schedule so that the approval window does not expire. This informal input assures no delays in the process when approaching the Commission meeting date.

We will streamline the FRA approval process
We achieved FRA approvals in under six months for a local project, leveraging our trusted relationships with FRA and the expertise of a former FRA staff member who is now on our team. This experience and our relationships will streamline the FRA approval process.

Results-driven approach to negotiations with UPRR and CPUC We successfully negotiated with UPRR on the Sunset Grade Separation and are currently obtaining UPRR and CPUC approvals on four Metrolink projects including six grade crossings, two new grade separations, and over six miles of new double tracking. This approach will prove equally beneficial for Hargrave.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 117
529

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 52
Community Engagement
Our team has engaged with City Council and the public
about the Hargrave Grade Separation and understand that the project generally has support. Public outreach will still require a careful approach to maintain this support. There are currently many concerns about how the southeast side of the city will redevelop and how all of the supporting transportation projects will all fit in. The stakeholders, including landowners and developers involved with redevelopment, as well as emergency services and the school district are also concerned for how this will come together for proper access and timing.

The approach that has worked effectively for the residents and stakeholders in this area is to hold workshops where the team can educate the public about the project and gain input. This is where technical information on the project is shown along with schedule and potential impacts. Just as important will be reporting the latest on the adjacent developments and transportation projects with their timing and how they will be effectively coordinated to reduce impacts to the community.

Another focus area is making sure the media has the right information to properly educate the community through their outlets. Our team worked closely with David Heiss when he was with the Record Gazette to make sure he had accurate information about the I-10 Bypass. This can now be done with Editors Hector Hernandez and Kristy Loufek of the Record Gazette. Other media outlets can follow a similar process.

We care about this community and have a deep understanding of their needs As part of the I-10 Bypass, our team has worked closely with the communities in the project area—we know their concerns and priorities many of which are related to Hargrave. We will lead workshops to share project information and gather input to build consensus and support for the project.

With all of the projects in the southeast side
of the city, it will be key to properly educate
the community and understand them.

Our Project Manager,
Darren Adrian, is native
to the Pass Area and is
able to connect with the
residents and stakeholders
as he is not viewed as an
outsider. This proved useful
on the I-10 Bypass project
when coordinating with the
community in the southeast
side of the city. Darren was
able to gain the trust of local
residents and landowners
that were initially negative
towards the project.
• Hargrave Street at-grade Railroad Crossing
• Truck Traffic
• Cut-through Traffic
• Existing Pavement Conditions
Public Comments/Concerns
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 118
530

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 53
Funding Support
As a full-service national firm, we are involved with local, state, and federal funding programs. In addition, we have added a funding specialist with Avant-Garde, who focusses on applying for and processing grant and funding applications for large transportation projects. Avant-Garde specializes in working with smaller municipalities, such as Banning, to seek funding, and once received, manage compliance. In addition, Avant-Garde’s staff works closely with Kimley-Horn as staff members have worked together for over 25 years. This relationship increases chances for success as the project needs and technical features are coordinated with the design team to attract funding.

Our team has all levels of funding covered. For local funds, Kimley-Horn is certainly familiar with the WRCOG TUMF program as we wrote the TUMF Credit and Reimbursement Manual and will use this knowledge to assure reimbursement is maximized in the program. The Kimley-Horn team has also remained close to the various City programs, including efforts to set up a funding district in the area.

State and federal funding are the larger sources, and our team is uniquely positioned. The Kimley-Horn team recently assisted the County with RAISE grant applications for the I-10 Bypass. This required pulling multiple sources of data to show the area’s disadvantaged community, diversity, transportation deficiencies, safety concerns, and relevant future projects. It also included focusing in on project elements and features that attract funding. Our team led a similar effort for Morongo for their interchange improvements, also addressing key elements of climate action. These efforts will provide our team with the information and approach necessary to seek construction funds for the Hargrave Grade Separation.

We are experienced in all levels of funding—our projects get built Whether through local, state, or federal funding, our team already has an abundance of information to support funding applications for construction.

Caltrans’ climate action principles are key elements for attracting larger funding sources, and the east side of Banning shows very well for accomplishing all of these. Our team has this information from our other efforts in this area and will use it to obtain construction funding for the project.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 119
531

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 54
One of the key elements for success with funding is garnering support from key stakeholders. Our team has the relationships and approach to obtain support from Morongo, the County, CHP, fire department, the Community of Cabazon, local businesses, and others. Our team even helped the previous District 5 Supervisor Hewitt with uniting the Pass Area to attract funding for major transportation projects as part of the Pass Area Mobility Projects effort. We recently helped engage Supervisor Gutierrez on projects in the Pass Area. Our team will implement all of these elements to obtain construction funding. As with many other elements of the project, we will truly act as an extension of City staff with these efforts.

Our team brings distinct advantages for managing existing funding sources and obtaining construction funding:

Our team will maximize TUMF reimbursement as we wrote the TUMF Credit and Reimbursement Manual Our team will assist with FRA grant compliance and seeking additional funds using our previous FRA staff that oversaw the funding and compliance program
Our team is familiar with TIRCP and the future plans for the Coachella Rail Line through this area and will assist with funding compliance and other coordination efforts We have recently applied for RAISE grant funding in this area and have all of the relevant data needed for the Hargrave Grade Separation
We have proven relationships that will help with key stakeholder support, such as Morongo, the County, CHP, fire department, the Community of Cabazon, and local businesses We have necessary elements of the bigger picture as we assisted the County Supervisor to unite the Pass Area and attract funding
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 120
532

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
55 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 121
533

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 56
Scope of Work
Our team has reviewed the Scope of Work contained in the RFP and supplemented as requested. The following contains the complete list of tasks with a brief description of our proposed edits. Proposed edits include additional language to define items or better clarify what we intend and have based our fee upon. Items not included in the RFP scope but believed to be necessary, or potential to be necessary, are indicated as optional. For City convenience, we have included a complete redline version of these edits to the RFP scope of work in the Appendix of this proposal.

Task Scope Edits
Task 1 - Project Administration

1.1 General Meetings and Coordination Additional subtask which defines scope for day-to-day management of the Project.

1.2 Project Management Plan Added assumptions.

1.3 Quality Control Plan No additions or modifications.

1.4 Project Controls No additions or modifications.

1.5 Project Development Team Meetings Added assumptions.

Task 2 – Data Collection

2.1 Aerial Mapping Added assumptions to define mapping limits and supplemental ground survey scope.

2.2 Potholing Added assumptions for pothole repair.

2.3 Right-of-Way Base Mapping Added assumptions for mapping.

2.4 Utility Notification Added assumptions for agencies anticipated and notification process.

2.5 Utility Base Mapping Added assumptions.

2.6 Geotechnical Records Research
and Findings No additions or modifications.

2.7 Traffic Analyses Added assumptions to define analysis parameters and study areas.

2.8 Caltrans Traffic Reports Added assumptions based on our updated knowledge of Caltrans requirements and defined limits of the Caltrans Traffic Reports.

Task 3 - Basis of Design Document

3.1 Basis of Design Document No additions or modifications.

Task 4 - Concept Development and Project Approval

4.1 Geometric Concepts Added optional task for Caltrans Geometric Approval Drawings (GADs).

4.2 Bridge and Retaining Wall Concepts Added assumptions to define the Advanced Planning Studies (APS).

4.3 Project Concept Report Added assumptions.

4.4 Project Concept Approval No additions or modifications.

Task 5 - Environmental Documentation

5.1 CEQA Statutory Exemption No additions or modifications.

5.2 NEPA Added assumptions to define each of the NEPA technical studies.

5.3 Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Added an optional task for a Visual Impact Assessment.

Our team has provided redline mode
edits to the scope of work to help
expedite completion of the agreement.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 122
534

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

RAILWAY BARRIER FENCING - AESTHETIC CONCEPT

BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Professional Design Services
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 57
Task Scope Edits
Task 6 - Plans Specifications and Estimates (PS&E)

6.1 Reports Added assumptions for the various technical reports.

6.2 Calculations Added assumptions to define the structural calculations.

6.3 Plan Preparation Added assumptions for the various sets of plans and to refer to the attached sheet count list.

6.4 Specifications Added assumptions defining the Standard Specifications, technical specifications, 35% specifications, and format.

6.5 Cost Estimates Added assumptions.

6.6 Construction Schedule No additions or modifications.

Task 7 - Right-of-Way

7.1 Right-of-Way Requirements Added assumptions to define Parcel Impact Memorandums.

7.2 Right-of-Way Maps No additions or modifications.

7.3 Appraisal Maps, Plats, and
Descriptions
Added assumptions to clarify right-of-way services and define number of plat and legal descriptions.

Task 8 - Coordination, Agreements and Permits

8.1 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Added assumptions related to agreements.

8.2 California Public Utilities Commission Added assumptions to define anticipated approval requirements.

8.3 Caltrans District 8 Added assumptions to define anticipated approval requirements.

8.4 Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District Added assumptions to define anticipated approval requirements.

8.5 Utility Coordination No additions or modifications.

8.6 Community Engagement Added assumptions.

8.7 Resource/ Regulatory Permitting
(Optional)
Added assumptions to define potential regulatory permit requirements and scope to obtain permits (if necessary).

Task 9 - Bidding Services

9.1 Resident Engineer Pending File No additions or modifications.

9.2 Bidding Phase Support No additions or modifications.

9.3 Conformed Plans and Specifications No additions or modifications.

Task 10 - Construction Phase Funding

10.1 Construction Phase Funding Added optional task to support the City in obtaining Construction Phase Funding.

EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 123
535
Detailed Project
Schedule
City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024 58
EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit "A" - 124
536

HARGRAVES GRADE SEPARATION - BANNING, CA

SAN JACINTO RETAINING WALL - AESTHETIC CONCEPT
INTEGRAL COLOR #1 CONCRETE

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #2 CONCRETE

FORMATION ACCENT

MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH
INTEGRAL COLOR #3 CO

FLUTED FORMATION ACCENT

HEAVY SANDBLAST FINISH
Professional Design Services
59 City of Banning  RSCAORNG002509.2024
1 1 Key Milestones 1635 days Mon 2/3/25 Wed 7/2/31
2 NTP 0 days Mon 2/3/25 Mon 2/3/25
3 Project Concept Approval 0 days Fri 4/24/26 Fri 4/24/26 78 4 35% PS&E 0 days Wed 8/19/26 Wed 8/19/26 102
5 65% PS&E 0 days Fri 2/12/27 Fri 2/12/27 114
6 95% PS&E 0 days Thu 8/5/27 Thu 8/5/27 122
7 100% PS&E 0 days Wed 12/22/27 Wed 12/22/27 129
8 Issued for Bid 0 days Fri 3/3/28 Fri 3/3/28 133
9 Issued for Construction (Conformed Plans and Spec) 0 days Fri 10/6/28 Fri 10/6/28 187 10 Project Complete 0 days Wed 7/2/31 Wed 7/2/31 195
11 IV.C Project Administration and Management 774 days Mon 2/3/25 Fri 3/3/28 12 Project Kickoff Meeting 1 day Mon 2/10/25 Mon 2/10/25 2FS+5 days 13 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Controls 774 days Mon 2/3/25 Fri 3/3/28 2 14 Baseline Schedule 10 days Mon 2/3/25 Fri 2/14/25 2
18 Develop Project Management Plan (PMP) 10 days Mon 2/3/25 Fri 2/14/25 2 22 Develop Quality Management System (QMS) Manual 10 days Mon 2/3/25 Fri 2/14/25 2 26 IV.D Data Collection 290 days Tue 2/18/25 Fri 4/10/26 27 Aerial Mapping (Incl. Office Processing) 160 days Tue 3/4/25 Fri 10/17/25 28 Caltrans ABC Mapping 40 days Tue 3/4/25 Mon 4/28/25 2FS+20 days,12 29 Caltrans Review and Approval 120 days Tue 4/29/25 Fri 10/17/25 28 30 UPRR Right of Entry Permit 40 days Tue 2/18/25 Mon 4/14/25 2FS+10 days 31 Roadway Topographic Survey (incl. data processing) 40 days Tue 4/29/25 Tue 6/24/25 28,163 32 Railroad Topographic Survey (incl. data processing) 20 days Tue 4/15/25 Mon 5/12/25 30 33 ROW Research and Base Mapping (incl. fieldwork) 60 days Tue 2/18/25 Mon 5/12/25 2FS+10 days 34 Geotechnical Research (no fieldwork) 40 days Tue 2/18/25 Mon 4/14/25 2FS+10 days 35 Utility Information Requests 20 days Tue 2/18/25 Mon 3/17/25 2FS+10 days 36 Initial Utility Base Mapping 20 days Tue 4/1/25 Mon 4/28/25 35FS+10 days 37 Utility GPR Scanning (Level B) 40 days Tue 4/29/25 Tue 6/24/25 36 38 Traffic Analyses 275 days Tue 3/11/25 Fri 4/10/26 2FS+25 days 39 Collect Traffic Count Data 15 days Tue 5/20/25 Mon 6/9/25 47 40 Preliminary Traffic Analysis 30 days Thu 8/21/25 Thu 10/2/25 50FS-20 days,39 41 City Review Traffic Analysis Report 10 days Fri 10/3/25 Fri 10/17/25 40 42 Update Traffic Analysis 10 days Mon 10/20/25 Fri 10/31/25 41 43 Finalize Traffic Analysis Report 10 days Mon 11/3/25 Mon 11/17/25 42 44 Caltrans Traffic Reports 275 days Tue 3/11/25 Fri 4/10/26 45 Draft Methodology Memorandum 20 days Tue 3/11/25 Mon 4/7/25 2FS+10 days 46 Caltrans Review of Methodology Memorandum 20 days Tue 4/8/25 Mon 5/5/25 45 47 Finalize Methodology Memorandum 10 days Tue 5/6/25 Mon 5/19/25 46 48 Draft Volumes Forecast Report 40 days Tue 6/10/25 Wed 8/6/25 47,39 49 Caltrans Review of Volumes Forecast Report 20 days Thu 8/7/25 Thu 9/4/25 48 50 Finalize Volumes Forecast Report 10 days Fri 9/5/25 Thu 9/18/25 49 51 Draft ICE/ISOAP 40 days Fri 9/19/25 Mon 11/17/25 50
52 Caltrans Review of ICE/ISOAP 20 days Tue 11/18/25 Tue 12/16/25 51 53 Finalize ICE/ISOAP 30 days Wed 12/17/25 Fri 1/30/26 52 54 Draft Traffic Operations Analysis Report 40 days Tue 11/18/25 Thu 1/15/26 43 55 Caltrans Review of Traffic Operations Analysis Report 20 days Fri 1/16/26 Fri 2/13/26 54 56 Finalize Traffic Operations Analysis Report 40 days Mon 2/16/26 Fri 4/10/26 55 57 IV.E Basis of Design Memorandum 115 days Tue 2/18/25 Wed 7/30/25 58 Draft Basis of Design Memorandum 40 days Tue 2/18/25 Mon 4/14/25 2FS+10 days 59 City Review Basis of Design Memorandum 20 days Tue 4/15/25 Mon 5/12/25 58 60 Caltrans Review Basis of Design Memorandum 20 days Tue 4/15/25 Mon 5/12/25 58 61 Update per City and Caltrans Reviews 5 days Tue 5/13/25 Mon 5/19/25 60,59 62 FRA Review Basis of Design 20 days Tue 5/20/25 Mon 6/16/25 61 63 Update per FRA Review Comments 10 days Tue 6/17/25 Tue 7/1/25 62 64 Final Basis of Design Memorandum 0 days Tue 7/1/25 Tue 7/1/25 59,60,63 65 Stakeholder Concurrence 20 days Wed 7/2/25 Wed 7/30/25 64 66 IV.F Concept Development and Project Approval 185 days Thu 7/31/25 Fri 4/24/26 67 Project Concept Approval 185 days Thu 7/31/25 Fri 4/24/26 65 68 Update Geometric Concept 20 days Thu 7/31/25 Wed 8/27/25 32,33,31,63 69 Bridge and Retaining Wall Concept 20 days Thu 7/31/25 Wed 8/27/25 32,33,31,63 70 Exhibits (P&P, ROW, Utility, Structures) 20 days Thu 8/28/25 Thu 9/25/25 68,69,37 Key Milestones
2/3
4/24
8/19
2/12
8/5
12/22
3/3
10/6
7/2
IV.C Project Administration and Management
Project Kickoff Meeting
Project Coordination, Meetings, and Controls
Baseline Schedule
Develop Project Management Plan (PMP)
Develop Quality Management System (QMS) Manual
IV.D Data Collection
Aerial Mapping (Incl. Office Processing)
Caltrans ABC Mapping
Caltrans Review and Approval
UPRR Right of Entry Permit
Roadway Topographic Survey (incl. data processing)
Railroad Topographic Survey (incl. data processing)
ROW Research and Base Mapping (incl. fieldwork)
Geotechnical Research (no fieldwork)
Utility Information Requests
Initial Utility Base Mapping
Utility GPR Scanning (Level B)
Traffic Analyses
Collect Traffic Count Data
Preliminary Traffic Analysis
City Review Traffic Analysis Report
Update Traffic Analysis
Finalize Traffic Analysis Report
Caltrans Traffic Reports
Draft Methodology Memorandum
Caltrans Review of Methodology Memorandum
Finalize Methodology Memorandum
Draft Volumes Forecast Report
Caltrans Review of Volumes Forecast Report
Finalize Volumes Forecast Report
Draft ICE/ISOAP
Caltrans Review of ICE/ISOAP
Finalize ICE/ISOAP
Draft Traffic Operations Analysis Report
Caltrans Review of Traffic Operations Analysis Report
Finalize Traffic Operations Analysis Report
IV.E Basis of Design Memorandum
Draft Basis of Design Memorandum
City Review Basis of Design Memorandum
Caltrans Review Basis of Design Memorandum
Update per City and Caltrans Reviews
FRA Review Basis of Design
Update per FRA Review Comments
7/1
Stakeholder Concurrence
IV.F Concept Development and Project Approval
Project Concept Approval
Update Geometric Concept
Bridge and Retaining Wall Concept
Exhibits (P&P, ROW, Utility, Structures)