Notice of Preparation City of Banning Robertson`s Quarry

Transcription

Notice of Preparation
City of Banning
Robertson’s Quarry Reclamation Plan, General
Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, California 92220
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 998
Phone: 951-922-3125
Fax: 951-922-3128
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF
A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
DATE: December 31, 2015
TO: State Clearinghouse, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, and Interested Parties
SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Title: Robertson’s Quarry Reclamation Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Change of
Zone
Lead Agency: City of Banning
Lead Agency Address: 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220
City Contact: Mr. Brian Guillot, Acting Community Development Director
Phone: 951-922-3131
Email: [email protected]
The City of Banning (City) has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is
necessary for the analysis of the proposed Robertson’s Quarry Reclamation Plan et. al.,
located within the City of Banning. The City, acting under its authority as the Lead Agency for
the project will prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the terms and
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the implementing CEQA
guidelines (“Guidelines”).
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The purpose for this notice is: (1) to serve as the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to potential
Responsible Agencies, and Trustee Agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the
project pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines; and (2) to advise and solicit
comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of the EIR, environmental issues to be
addressed in the EIR, and any related issues from interested parties other than those noted
above, including interested or affected members of the public.
The City requests that any potential Responsible or Trustee Agency responding to this notice,
respond in a manner consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b).
In order for the concerns of your agency to be incorporated into the Draft EIR, the City is
requesting that you provide environmental information pertaining to the scope and content
relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project.
Your response at a minimum should include: (a) significant environmental issues and
reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible or trustee agency will
need to have explored in the Draft EIR; and (b) whether or not your agency will be a
www.ci.banning.ca.us
1
City of Banning
responsible or trustee agency for the project.
The project description, location, and a discussion indicating the probable environmental effects
of the proposed action are contained in the attached materials. Additional project information,
including a copy of the Initial Study (IS), is available for review at the City Hall, located at 99 E.
Ramsey Street, Banning California, at the Banning Public Library, located at 21 West Nicolet
Street, Banning, California, and on the City’s website at http://www.ci.banning.ca.us/.
HOW AND WHEN TO COMMENT
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and Guidelines Section 15082(b),
Responsible Agencies must submit any written comments in response to this notice no
later than 30 days after receipt. All parties that have submitted their names and mailing
addresses will be notified as part of the current project’s CEQA review process. If you wish
placement upon the mailing list or have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact the person identified above. The City will accept written comments from Trustee and
Responsible Agencies and interested parties regarding this notice through the close of business
on February 1, 2016 (submit written comments to the City address shown above).
PROJECT SUMMARY
The project is multi-faceted in that it intends to achieve a number of objectives, as follows:
 Consolidate the two previously approved surface mining operations into a single permit;
 Consolidate the two previously approved reclamation plans into a single reclamation plan;
 Authorize the unapproved mining operation associated with the 17-acre property in the
westernmost area of the project site and include in the overall permit;
 Incorporate the unapproved mining operation associated with the 17-acre property into
the overall reclamation plan;
 Amend the General Plan Land Use Designation for the 17-acre property from Low
Density Residential to Industrial Mining Resources (IMR);
 Change the Zoning District for the 17-acre property from Low Density Residential to
Industrial-Mineral Resources;
 See attached Project Description for further details
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An IS was prepared for the project, which was used to focus the EIR on the effects determined
to be significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3). A copy of the IS is attached
to this NOP. The following are the impacts determined to be Potentially Significant that are to be
analyzed in the EIR:
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
2
City of Banning
Brian Guillot
Acting Community Development Director
City of Banning
Attachments: Initial Study
Project Description
3
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, California 92220
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 998
Phone: 951-922-3125
Fax: 951-922-3128
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF
A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
DATE: December 31, 2015
State of California – Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-653-6251
Fax: 916-657-5390
Website: www.nahc.ca.gov
SUBJECT: Native American Consultation (SB 18 and AB52 Consultation) for the Oak
Creek Canyon Residential Project
Project Title: Robertson’s Quarry Reclamation Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Change of
Zone
Lead Agency: City of Banning
Lead Agency Address: 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220
City Contact: Mr. Brian Guillot, Acting Community Development Director
Phone: 951-922-3131
Email: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Singleton,
The City of Banning has received an application for the above referenced project and is
requesting your review of the proposed Roberson’s Quarry located in the City of Banning to
determine if formal consultation is appropriate, and unto which agencies pursuant to
Government Code Section 65352.3 a n d Section 5097.94 (Senate Bills 18 and 52,
respectively). The project involves several planning applications described as follows:
PROJECT SUMMARY
 Consolidate the two previously approved surface mining operations into a single permit;
 Consolidate the two previously approved reclamation plans into a single reclamation plan;
 Authorize the unapproved mining operation associated with the 17-acre property in the
 Incorporate the unapproved mining operation associated with the 17-acre property into the
overall reclamation plan;
 Amend the General Plan Land Use Designation for the 17-acre property from Low Density
4
City of Banning
 Amend the General Plan Land Use Designation for the 17-acre property from Low Density
Residential to Industrial Mining Resources (IMR);
 Change the Zoning District for the 17-acre property from Low Density Residential to
Industrial-Mineral Resources;
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An IS was prepared for the project, which was used to focus the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3). A copy of the Initial Study (IS) is
attached to this NOP. The following are the impacts determined to be Potentially Significant that
are to be analyzed in the EIR:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
I have attached the location map and tentative subdivision map as submitted to the City.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached
by phone at the information referenced above.
Sincerely,
Brian Guillot
Acting Community Development Director
City of Banning
Attachments: Initial Study
Project Description
5
6
CASC
Engineering and Consulting
1470 E. Cooley Drive
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
PROJECT STATEMENT:
The Revised Reclamation Plan for the Banning Quarry (CA Mine ID# 91-33-0012) is being submitted to
update the existing Reclamation Plan (RCL) for a vested sand and gravel Quarry located in the northeast
portion of the City of Banning.
PROJECT DEFINITION:
The Project, as submitted to the City of Banning, seeks the consolidation of two previously authorized
reclamation plans (e.g., UUP 1994-01 and CUP 1965) into a revised and updated Reclamation Plan for City
Council consideration. This plan incorporates Vested Mining Rights over approximately 169 gross acres
and approximately 17 gross acres of unpermitted mining operations (See Exhibit 1). The Project seeks land
use approval for the continuation of mining activities on the unpermitted area described in Exhibit 1 as
well as a revision and update to previous reclamation plans approved for the balance of the project site.
As such, the Project will require City Council approval of a General Plan Land Use Amendment, a Change
of Zone Application, and a Revised Reclamation Plan. In addition to City Council consideration, these
discretionary approvals will require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA).
PROJECT LOCATION:
The Project is located within the northeast portion of the City of Banning, immediately adjacent to the
San Gorgonio River. The Project Site is bounded by North Hathaway Street to the east, the San Gorgonio
River to the north, by both East Theodore Street and East Repplier Road to the south, and North Durward
Street to the west. The westerly edge of the Project site is located approximately ninety (90’) feet from
existing single-family residences at its closest point.
PROJECT ENTITLEMENT HISTORY:
The current Project site incorporates two (2) reclamation plans, which are associated with two (2) other
permits previously approved by the City of Banning. The entire Project site encompasses twenty (20)
contiguous land parcels, totaling approximately 169 gross acres.
In 1965, the City of Banning approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Project site (CUP 1995).
This was to allow the operation of a borrow pit, construction aggregate plant, ready mix concrete
batching plant, asphalt hot-mix batching plant, and the development of ancillary office and/or
administrative function buildings. Parcels within this permit are listed in Table 1.
Lot
107
108
109
110
113
114
115
116
Table 1 – CUP 1965 Permit Parcel Data
APN
534-100-001
534-100-002
534-100-006
534-100-005
534-100-003
534-100-004
534-100-007
534-100-008
Acreage
9.65
5.57
14.24
5.00
9.68
9.68
9.68
9.68
www.cascinc.com
7
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
119
120
121/122
534-110-001
534-110-002
534-110-003
Total Acreage:
9.68
9.68
19.36
111.90
In 1996, the City of Banning granted an Unclassified Use Permit (UUP) for the southern portion of the
Project site. This permit (UUP 1994-01) was granted to the underlying operator Matich Corporation
Mining Operations for the following parcels listed in Table 2 to allow reclamation on the property specified
therein 1. This plan incorporates Vested Mining Rights over approximately 169 gross acres and
approximately 17 gross acres of unpermitted mining operations (See Exhibit 1). The Project seeks land use
approval for the continuation of mining activities on the unpermitted area described in Exhibit 1 as well
as a revision and update to previous reclamation plans approved for the balance of the project site. As
such, the Project will require City Council approval of a General Plan Land Use Amendment, a Change of
Zone Application, and a Revised Reclamation Plan. In addition, to City Council consideration, these
discretionary approvals will require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Parcels within this permit are identified in Table 2:
Lot
126
127
128
132
133
134
Table 2 – UUP 1994-01 Permit Parcel Data
APN
534-123-002
534-110-004
534-110-005
534-213-001
534-230-002
534-230-001
Total Acreage:
Acreage
9.56
9.68
9.68
9.37
9.62
9.18
57.09
Based upon current and historical aerial footage, and field confirmation, the mining operations extend
beyond the boundaries of the two authorizations previously referenced above. This area can be generally
described as being located between North Hargrave Street and North Florida Street (towards the westerly
most edge of the Project Site). The additional excavation area is contiguous to the existing operation and
generally includes 16 acres of property owned by the project proponent (Robertson’s Ready Mix) and
approximately 1-acre under the ownership of the City of Banning. See Exhibit 1. The parcels applicable to
this subject are listed in Table 3.
Lot
111
117
118
Table 3 – Unpermitted Area Parcel Data
APN
534-050-003
534-084-001
534-084-002
Total Acreage:
Acreage
7.55
8.17
1.08
16.80
1
The Project, as submitted to the City of Banning, seeks the consolidation of two previously authorized reclamation plans (e.g., UUP 1994-01
and CUP 1965) into a revised and updated Reclamation Plan for City Council consideration.
www.cascinc.com
8
534-100-005
534-100-001
534-100-006
534-100-002
534-050-003
534-100-003
534-100-007
534-100-008
Banning Quarry
Permit Areas
Permit Status
Original
Original Permitted Area
111.93 acres
Unpermitted Area
16.80 acres
534-084-001
534-100-004
Exhibit 1
534-110-001
534-110-002
Recent
Unpermitted
Reclamation Boundary
QuarryParcels
534-110-003
534-084-002
534-123-002
534-110-004
0
Recently Permitted Area
57.09
534-213-002
534-230-001
.
534-110-005
185
370
740
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
534-230-002
Date: June 8, 2015
Sources: Banning Reclamation Plan
9
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING:
The geographical boundaries of permitted excavation (as detailed in both Table 1 and Table 2) are
identified on the Adopted General Plan Land Use Map (Exhibit III-2, dated March 16, 2006) as IndustrialMineral Resources (IMR). This designation is defined by the Banning Municipal Code, Section 9109.01,
Subsection H as follows:
This district allows surface mining operations on lands designated by the City or the State as
having significant potential for mineral resources. All the requirements of the State Department
of Mining and Geology shall apply.
A Surface Mining Operation is authorized as an allowable use in the IMR zoning classification subject to
the approval of a Surface Mining Permit granted by the City Council and in accordance with both Section
9125 of the Banning Municipal Code and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA).
The geographical boundaries of unpermitted excavation (as identified on Exhibit 1) are located within the
Low Density Residential (0-5 du/ac) Land Use Designation (LUD) as shown on the City’s General Plan Land
Use Map, as referenced above. This LUD is defined by Section 9102.01, Subsection F of the Banning
Municipal Code and states the following:
This zoning district allows the development of attached and detached single family homes, in
traditional subdivisions and planned communities. The clustering of condominiums and
townhomes may be appropriate with the provision of common area amenities and open space,
when a Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development is prepared. Bed & breakfasts and similar
uses may be appropriate with the approval of a conditional use permit. Home Occupations are
permitted with approval of a Home Occupation permit.
A Surface Mining Operation Permit (SMP) is not authorized within this Low Density Residential General
Plan LUD or its accompanying zoning classification. As such, a General Plan Amendment and Change of
Zoning Classification will be necessary to authorize mining operations, as well as ancillary uses such as
concrete and/or asphalt batching plants, Ready Mix Concrete processing facilities, administrative offices,
and other activities authorized under SMARA in conjunction with ongoing mining operations. A General
Plan Amendment (GPA) will be processed in accordance with Section 9116 of the Banning Municipal Code
and a Change of Zone will be processed in accordance with Section 9129.00 of the Banning Municipal
Code. In addition, a Surface Mining Permit (processed in accordance with Section 9125) will be necessary
to authorize mining activities within the 16.80 acres of land identified in Table 3.
www.cascinc.com
10
534-100-005
534-100-001
534-100-006
San Gorgonio River
~42 acres
534-100-002
534-100-003
534-050-003
West Pit
~36 acres
534-084-001
534-110-001
534-100-004
534-100-007
Exhibit 2
Banning Quarry
Permit Areas
534-100-008
Plant Area
~30 acres
534-110-002
Quarry Parcels
534-110-003
534-084-002
534-123-002
534-110-004
0
534-230-001
185
370
740
Feet
South Pit
~57 acres
534-213-002
.
534-110-005
1 inch = 500 feet
534-230-002
Date: June 8, 2015
11
534-100-005
534-100-001
534-100-006
534-100-002
534-050-003
534-100-003
534-100-007
534-100-008
Banning Quarry
General Plan
Permit Status
Original
Recent
Unpermitted
111.93 acres
Unpermitted Area
16.80 acres
534-084-001
534-100-004
Exhibit 39
534-110-001
534-110-002
General Plan
Industrial Mining Resource (IMR)
Low Density Residential
534-110-003
Quarry Parcels
534-084-002
534-123-002
534-110-004
.
534-110-005
0
57.09
534-213-002
534-230-001
185
370
740
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
534-230-002
Date: June 8, 2015
& City of Banning General Plan
12
534-100-005
534-100-001
534-100-006
San Gorgonio River
~42 acres
534-100-002
534-100-003
534-050-003
West Pit
~36 acres
534-084-001
534-100-004
534-100-007
Exhibit 4
Banning Quarry
General Plan
534-100-008
Plant Area
~30 acres
General Plan
534-110-001
534-110-002
534-110-003
Quarry Parcels
534-084-002
534-123-002
534-110-004
0
534-230-001
185
370
740
Feet
South Pit
~57 acres
534-213-002
.
534-110-005
1 inch = 500 feet
534-230-002
Date: June 8, 2015
13
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
PROJECT OBJECTIVES:
The intent of the project proponent’s application for a Revised Reclamation Plan is two-fold. First, it is the
stated intent of the application to combine and consolidate the previous two project reclamation plans
(CUP 1965 and UUP 1994-01) under one revised reclamation plan encompassing approximately 169 gross
acres. The second intent is to permit a surface mining operation (and possibly ancillary operations) within
the 16.80 gross acres of property currently being excavated without City and State authority. It should be
noted that the boundary of the Revised Reclamation Plan is proposed to incorporate a total of 186 gross
acres of property as described in Exhibit 3.
In order for the Revised Reclamation Plan Application to be found consistent with both the State Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) the following objectives of the Project have been identified:
(1) The Project will ensure all active and future mining operations are consistent with the City of Banning
Municipal Code, The City’s General Plan in its entirety, and SMARA.
(2) The General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to allow/mining in new area; LUP
amendment to allow residential use in the reclaimed area?
(3) The Project will adequately identify, both in text and graphical formats, the substantial changes
occurring at the Project site since the most recent City Council approval in 1996. In addition, the
environmental document will catalog the environmental reports, findings, and conclusions prepared
for UUP 1994-01 compared to the potential environmental impacts associated with both the mine
expansion and cumulative impacts associated with said expansion.
(4) The Project shall address its adjacency and integration with the San Gorgonio River and the
environmental document will catalog all impacts associated with the Project on the River itself.
Furthermore, the Project will ensure that all Federal, State, and Local Regulations and Ordinances are
met to ensure long-term protection of the San Gorgonio River and its features.
(5) The Project shall identify an end date for all permitted mining activities and establish a viable end use
of the property (described in Tables 1-3) through an updated Reclamation Plan approved by the City
Council.
(6) The Project will avoid impacting the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) levee.
(7) The Project will continue to contribute to the needs of the construction industry in the region.
(8) The Project shall avoid significant impacts to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) levee system,
located at the northern border of the Project site. This levee is owned by the ACOE and maintained
through a cooperative agreement between the ACOE and the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD).
(9) The Project shall evaluate the potential impacts to the Southern California Edison (SCE) 500 KV
distribution corridor that traverses the Project Site.
PROJECT’S TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS:
TECHNICAL – OVERVIEW:
The applicant, Robertson’s Ready Mix, is the owner of mineral rights for the Project site, as described in
Tables 1-3. Current operations on site generally include the mining and processing of aggregate materials
for distribution throughout Southern California either for direct industrial application or processing into
secondary products for commercial applications. In addition, the project proponent is authorized to utilize
www.cascinc.com
14
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
ancillary batching facilities within the boundary described in Table 2. Currently, there are three major
open-pit excavations on site commonly known as the “West, East, and South Pits”. The depths of each pit
is approximately one-hundred and fifty (150’) feet below the original ground surface level.
The West Pit lies on the western-most edge of the Project site and incorporates approximately 36 gross
acres of land primarily owned by the project proponent with the exception of approximately one acre as
described in Table 3. Of this 36-acres, 17-acres extend beyond the limits of the 1965 CUP and are
designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) (0 – 5 Du/Ac) on the City of Banning General Plan Land Use
Plan. Moreover, this 17-acre extension is classified as Single-Family Residential (SFR) pursuant to Section
9102.1.F of the City of Banning Municipal Code. The subject 17-acres was not incorporated under the 1965
CUP or the UUP 1994-01 permits, and is not included, or referenced in either of their accompanying
Reclamation Plans. In addition, there is no current or historical record of mining rights being granted to
these 17- acres. [Reference to the proximity to the ACOE levee]
The East Pit is the oldest of the three (3) mining areas and is currently used as a non-infiltration retention
basin, located in the center portion of the East Pit. The East Pit is approximately 21 acres in size and
borders the San Grogornio River to the north and the Morongo Reservation to the east. An existing
Southern California Edison (SCE) distribution line (Devers Line) is located on the western edge of the East
Pit. There is currently interaction between the mining operations and SCE, which is contingent upon an
independent CEQA/NEPA process (CPUC Proceeding: A0504015).
The South Pit is currently active under authorization provided by UUP 1994-01 which incorporates
approximately 57 gross acres of the total Project site. The South Pit will be mined to approximately onehundred and fifty (150’) feet below the existing surface grade and create side slopes of 1.25:1. The
processing plant lies within the center of the South Pit location and provides the majority of crushing,
screening, classifying, and washing of the sand and gravel products. The Project anticipates that future
operations will incorporate a plant area at the bottom of the South Pit so that mining can continue in the
central portion of the project site.
TECHNICAL – GENERAL OPERATIONS:
Mining operations involve the use of a hydraulic shovel or front-end-loader to excavate raw aggregate
material which is then loaded onto large (e.g., 18-wheel tractor-trailer) haul trucks. Excavations generally
proceed in a “stair-step” fashion, which removes successive lifts of material that is approximately twenty
(20’) to twenty-five (25’) feet in thickness.
Aggregate materials are segregated by size into loose conical stockpiles. Coarse gravel and cobble-size
particles are crushed. Raw wash water originates from a well located near the western site boundary and
is piped to an earthen basin just north of the plant. Clarifier tanks and recharge basins assist in the
recycling of most wash water used in this process, while concentrated silty fines are discharged as thin
slurry into the East Pit. The graded sand and crushed-rock aggregates are transported by truck to
Robertson’s transit-mix concrete batching plants throughout the region; trucked to road construction jobs
for road base; or sold to precast products manufacturers. The Project site does not propose to include, or
continues to produce ready-mix concrete products or hot-mix asphaltic concrete products.
www.cascinc.com
15
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
All pit excavations are performed without the use of dredging or excavation below static phreatic surface
elevations. Hauling roads transverse the Project site to the centralized crushing, screening, and washing
plant area. The processing plant area is located near or about the original grade of the project site.
However, the plant area does conceal some older backfilled excavations. Furthermore, the onsite project
administrative center is located within the same location as the centralized processing facility.
The applicant’s submittal package indicates that project related haul trucks entering and exiting from the
project site are estimated at approximately 350 round trips per day (700 trips total). These potential
impacts will be assessed and evaluated through trip records and receipts available through the property
owner’s business operations.
TECHNICAL – RECLAMATION PLAN (REVISED):
Activities proposed with the amended Reclamation Plan include the following:
• New cut slopes shall meet the geotechnical engineer’s recommendation for overall 1.25:1 inclinations.
• 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut slopes within the limits of the 1965 CUP. In some cases, these slopes
have already been established and are in compliance with the current (1990) reclamation plan.
• 1.25:1 cut slopes. This would apply to the South Pit (UUP 1994-01).
• 1.25:1 cut slopes within the southwestern portion of the West Pit.
• Construct a stabilization fill consisting of graded material with a system of passive sub drains to
conceal surface water flows, provide additional stability to existing slopes, and direct water flows
through the subsurface into a collection system. Construction of the stabilization fill will require
cutting of the southern portion of the West Pit extension area to supplement fill placement. The
cut/fill volumes are roughly balanced. Fill materials will be placed at a maximum 2:1 final grade. A
sump in the West Pit extension has been designed to capture groundwater flow: allowing collection
and infiltration of captured waters. The size of the sump is adequate to capture up to 20 acre-feet of
water. This measure is fully described in Appendix B, Groundwater Seepage Investigation and shown
on the Reclamation Plan map.
• Phased reclamation of mine areas will coincide with the mine phasing schedule listed in Table 4 above.
Table 4 presents the reclamation activities that will occur during each phase of mining.
Phase
1
2
3
Table 4 Reclamation Phasing
Description
Complete final slope grading on the east and west side of South Pit and revegetation.
The final slope grading for the south side of the South Pit is expected to be completed
by the end of 2015. Final slope grading for the north side of the South Pit will not be
completed until resource depletion at the site.
Complete final slope grading and water infiltration control in the west half of West Pit
and revegetate. Commence stabilization fills in East Pit.
Complete final slope grading in the east half of the West Pit and revegetation. Final
slope grading would be limited to the northern portion of this area. Complete
stabilization fills in the East Pit.
www.cascinc.com
16
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
4
5
•
•
•
•
Complete final slope grading in the east half of the West Pit and revegetation. Final
slope grading in the East Pit will include fill areas where the existing slopes exceed a
1.25:1 gradient. The fills may not exceed a 2:1 final gradient.
Remove all equipment from the site. Complete final slope grading within the final mine
phase area and revegetation.
Revegetation of mined slopes using native species. Revegetation requirements are identified in the
Reclamation Plan. This includes the cultural methods used to plant the reclaimed surfaces, suggested
seed mixes, and performance standards to identify reclamation adequacy.
Remove of all mining and processing equipment at the completion of mining.
Monitoring to ensure reclamation requirements and standards are achieved as outlined in the
approved reclamation plan.
Financial Assurances are updated annually to reflect changes in the operations as they relate to site
reclamation.
ECONOMIC:
The Project site produces materials that are generally categorized as Aggregates which, according to the
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association (CALCIMA), includes the following:
Sand, Gravel, and Crushed Stone are raw materials use in the production and processing of Cement, Concrete,
and Asphalt, which provide the basic building materials for concrete tilt-up and masonry building construction
and most paved roads in California. Furthermore, these materials are used for a wide variety of infrastructure
projects such as Highways, Bridges, Roads, Streets, Homes, Schools, Hospitals, Shopping Centers, Airports,
Railroads, Rapid Transit, Ports, Tunnels, Dams, Commercial and Government Buildings, Sewer Systems, and
Water Purification Systems and Sewage Treatment Plans.
The California Department of Labor Statistics reports that the production of aggregate for the construction
industry is the California’s 4th largest economic industry, producing a total economic impact of at least
$230 billion annually (i.e., 16% of California’s gross domestic industrial output). The aggregate industry
has also created 1.8 million California jobs within the last decade (reporting timeframe 2000 – 2010,
California Department of Labor Statistics). Lastly the State Department of Conservation forecasts that
construction aggregate materials will fall at least 70% (or 13 billon tons) over the next 5 decades.
LOCAL SUPPLY ECONOMY OF AGGREGATE MATERIALS:
Aggregate materials are necessary resource to our local economy for the construction of roads, to aide in
the transport of commuters, and provide for the long-term maintenance of roads, bridges, homes,
hospitals, schools, private and public construction projects. Historically, California communities have
relied on local supplies of aggregate material as the most efficient and effective way to supply materials
to the construction industry. (Construction Aggregate Supply Limitations, Estimates of Economic Impact,
Caltrans, 2007).
Since 2007, the trend in permitting aggregate mining operations in California has been to place the actual
facility some distance from the end user or end product. Just in Riverside County alone, the majority of
new surface mining permits have been authorized at distances of 50+ miles from construction sites. This
trend has increased the environmental and health impacts from increased transportation. As the State of
www.cascinc.com
17
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
California has demonstrated through the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), impacts
from Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) creates more air pollution than any other source (stationary or transient)
in the State. As such, the transport of aggregate over long distances contributes to increasing the
pollutants of concern, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, identified as problematic within our Air
Quality Basin (AQMD), which is classified as a nonattainment Air Basin. Placing aggregate mining facilities
closer to where the construction is located reduces VMT, which reduces air quality concerns in total. These
impacts must be balanced with other local environmental impacts such as land use, noise aesthetics, local
traffic interaction, local biology and dust mitigation from operational impacts themselves.
The Project’s environmental document will address all these potential impacts and present a
comprehensive view of the specific impacts generated from the Project, while recommending feasible
Mitigation Measures (MM) to reduce significant impacts and to the greatest extent possible and are also
economically feasible.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS:
The Project is located within the northeastern portion of the City of Banning, within an area of gently
sloping topography running south from the San Gorgonio River to the Interstate 10 freeway. The only
urbanized development is located to the west and southwest of the project site within an existing
community dating back to the mid-1970s. This residential community is further characterized by curbadjacent sidewalks, an elementary school and non-uniform architectural and development standards.
The northern portion of the Project site is encompassed entirely by the San Gorgonio River that traverses
the entire northern portion of the Project site and continues to flow in a northwestern and southeastern
location. The San Gorgonio River originates from the San Gorgonio Mountain Range, which peaks at
Mount San Gorgonio which is the highest peak in Southern California and the Transverse Ranges at 11,503
feet. The San Bernardino Mountains, spans 27 miles from east City of San Bernardino and 12 miles to the
northeast of the San Gorgonio Pass. The river itself includes a 26.8 mile-long area that starts in the San
Bernardino Mountains, on the west side of the Mt. San Gorgonio and flows south then east to its
confluence with the Whitewater River in the western Coachella Valley.
To the eastern portion of the Project site, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians holds reservation land
immediately adjacent (across North Hathaway Street) which extends several miles to the east. The
Morongo Band of Mission Indians are generally known for the Morongo Casino and Resort, located at
Apache Trail and the Interstate 10 freeway. However, the land immediately adjacent to the Project site is
primarily vacant and includes the resident and business entrance to the reservation, which is less than 1
acre in size.
The Project site, and its immediate surroundings are generally devoid of natural vegetation – outside of
the San Gorgonio River itself – which the Project site incorporates to a certain extent. The Project includes
historical mining activities dating back to the early 1920s for the East and South Pits and to at least 1995
for the West Pit. As part of the Project’s environmental document, further research and analysis will be
necessary to ascertain the pre-excavation environmental condition of the 16.80 gross acres previously
referenced within Table 3.
www.cascinc.com
18
Colton, CA 92324
Office: 909.783.0101
Fax: 909.783.0108
PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT:
The City of Banning, acting as the Lead Agency for CEQA purposes, is preparing an Initial Study to establish
a comprehensive framework to identify and assess all potential environmental impacts associated with
the Project as described herein. The purpose of this environmental documentation shall be used as a
source of information to assist the City of Banning (including staff, Planning Commission, and ultimately
City Council) in the decision-making process on whether to approve the Revised Reclamation Plan, and
other discretionary permits associated with the project approval, and establish impose or require financial
assurances associated with the discretionary approvals as required by Section 5.60.040 of the Banning
Municipal Code.
The following is a list of Governments, Boards, Agencies, Responsible and Trustee Agencies responsible
for review and consultation of the Project as defined herein:
Tribal
• The Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Federal:
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• Western Riverside County Conservation Authority (WRCRCA)
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
State:
• The State Department of Conservation – Office of Mining and Reclamation (OMR)
• The State Board of Mining and Geology
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• CalEPA
• Caltrans
• The State Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Watershed
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Local:
• The City of Banning
• Banning Heights Water Agency
• Air Quality Management Board (AQMD) for the South Coast Air Quality Basin (SCAB)
• Southern California Edison (SCE)
• Banning Unified School District
www.cascinc.com
19
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION FORM
& CEQA INITIAL
STUDY FORM
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed
project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, Ordinances, and
Guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City’s Rules and Procedures
to implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be
provided in full.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Application Number for the project to which this form pertains:
Project Title: Robertson’s Mine Reclamation Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone
Name & Address of project owner(s):
Robertson’s Ready Mix
200 South Main Street, Suite 200
Corona, CA 92882
Name & Address of developer or project sponsor:
Contact Person & Address:
Robertson’s Ready Mix
200 South Main Street, Suite 200
Corona, CA 92882
Christine Goeyvaerts
Property Manager
Robertson's Ready Mix
P.O. Box 3600
Corona, Ca 92878
(951) 760-4241 (Cell)
(951) 685-4600 Ext 6283 (office)
[email protected]
Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above):
CASC Engineering and Consulting
Colton, CA 92324
Adam Rush, Director of Planning
Tom Nievez, Senior Project Manager
Telephone Number: 909-783-0101
Extensions 5730 and 5350
Page 20
PROJECT INFORMATION & DESCRIPTION:
1) Provide a full-scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate
the site boundaries.
SEE ATTACHED
2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west;
views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site; and representative views of
s i g n i f i c a n t features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph.
SEE ATTACHED
3)
Project Location (describe):
The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City. Entry to the project site is from the
terminus of North Hathaway Street. The project site is bordered by the San Gorgonio River to the
north, North Hathaway Street to the east, both East Theodore Street and North Repplier Road to
the south, and North Durward Street to the west.
4)
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary):
534-050-003, 534-084-001, 534-084-002, 534-100-001, 534-100-002, 534-100-003,
534-100-004, 534-100-005, 534-100-006, 534-100-007, 534-100-008, 534-110-001,
534-110-002, 534-110-003, 534-110-004, 534-110-005, 534-123-002, 534-213-002
534-230-001, 534-230-002
5)
Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.):
185.79 acres
6)
261
Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed
dedications):
185.79 acres
7)
Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site
(attach additional sheet if necessary):
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for the 17acre area in the westernmost portion of the project site. The existing General
Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential is proposed to be changed
to Industrial-Minerial Resources (IMR). The existing Zoning District of Low
Density Residential is proposed to be changed to Industrial Mineral Resources.
8)
Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Banning and other governmental
agencies in order to fully implement the project:
Based on the current Project design concept, other permits necessary to realize the proposal will likely include,
but are not limited to, the following:
a) Stormwater management and associated permitting will be r equired consistent with the
provisions of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
b) Permitting required under Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the National Pollutant
Page 21
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit;
c) Permitting may be required by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) for certain Project operations and its associated equipment.
d) Permitting may be required from Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and California Department
of Fish & Wildlife for proposed alteration to existing drainage course.
9)
Describe the physical setting of the site, as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil
stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any
existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of
significant features described. In addition, cite all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies,
biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies).
The overall Robertson’s Mine project site is located on the alluvial fan of the San Gorgonio
River, situated on the southern edge of the San Bernardino Mountains and north of the San
Jacinto Mountains, in an area known as the San Gorgonio Pass. The site slopes gently in a
south to southeastern direction into the valley area, which includes Beaumont, Banning and
Cabazon. The valley then drains in a generally west to east direction through the San
Gorgonio Pass toward the Coachella Valley.
Highest natural ground elevation is
approximately 2,560 feet above sea level at the northwest corner of the project site.
The San Gorgonio River traverses the northern limits of the subject mine. The river originates
in the Banning Canyon to the west and north. The project site is located at the mouth of the
Banning Canyon and is situated on the apex of the Banning Fan. An existing levee,
constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers, is situated at the northern limits of the western
pit that keeps the San Gorgonio River from entering developed portions of the City, and the
site and flooding the western pit. The river exists at elevations that are well above the
adjacent working mine pit areas.
Robertson’s Mine is a sand and gravel aggregate mine that is comprised of approximately
186 acres in the eastern portion of the City of Banning. Three dormant open pits exist within
the project site boundary in the eastern, western and southern portions of the site. An active
open pit in the central portion of the site has recently been opened. The depths of the mining
operation range from approximately 40 to 150 feet below existing grade. The eastern pit
contains standing water with a silt bottom. The western pit contains water resulting from
seepage emanating from the highwalls with ponding in the southeastern area of the pit. The
southern pit has no water and is approximately 100 feet deep. Virtually the entire site has
been impacted by the historical mining operations and all vegetation that existed prior to
mining activity on the project site has been removed. The western pit contains foliage
associated with the standing water. The northwestern corner of the western pit contains
foliage associated with the seepage emanating from the highwalls in that area of the pit.
Mining Equipment and Material Storage:
On Tuesday October 27, 2015, reconnaissance of the Robertson’s Mine adjacent to the Site was
completed. According to an Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Tank Facility Statement,
provided by Robertson’s Mine, one 12,000-gallon diesel and two 120-gallon oil above ground
storage tanks were located in the southwest corner of the Robertson’s Mine property. However,
during the Site reconnaissance, only one 12,000-gallon diesel tank was observed in the
southwestern portion of the site. The tank and the secondary concrete containment are shown on
Photo Sheet 13, Photo 1. A maintenance area located near the southern central portion of the
Page 22
Robertson Mine is shown on Photo Sheet 13. A maintenance shed and drum storage area is
shown in Photo Sheet 13 Photos 2, 3, and 4 show a heavy equipment maintenance area with
minor oil staining on the ground. A scrap storage area was observed in the northeastern portion of
the Site. Two abandoned tanks approximately 10,000 gallons each are shown in Photo Sheet 14,
Photos 1 and 3 and two approximately 500-gallon abandoned tanks (Photo 2) were also observed
in the scrap area. Oxygen and acetylene tanks stored outside a shed in the scrap area are shown
on Photo Sheet 14, Photo 4 and PS 15 Photo 1. Palletized cans of a tar substance are shown in
Photo Sheet 15, Photo 2 and unlabeled plastic tote type containers, filled with various amounts of
unknown liquids are shown in Photo Sheet 15, Photos 3 and 4.
Page 23
10)
Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information (books, published
reports and oral history):
The Banning Quarry has been in continuous operation since the early 1900’s. The project
site does not contain any cultural aspects of any significance. From a historical perspective,
the project site has been actively mined for decades and thus is part of the modern history of
the area.
11)
Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will
affect proposed uses:
Noise from the site is a result of the processing facility and the heavy equipment used. No
particular noise sources exist in proximity of the project site that would have the potential to
affect the proposed uses of the project.
12)
Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate
use that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of
development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s)
if necessary:
▪ Consolidate the two previously approved surface mining operations into a single permit;
▪ Consolidate the two previously approved reclamation plans into a single reclamation plan;
▪ Authorize the unapproved mining operation associated with the 17-acre property in the
▪ Incorporate the unapproved mining operation associated with the 17-acre property into the
overall reclamation plan;
▪ Amend the General Plan Land Use Designation for the 17-acre property from Low Density
Residential to Industrial Mineral Resources (IMR);
▪ Change the Zoning District for the 17-acre property from Low Density Residential to IndustrialMineral Resources
Page 24
13)
Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or
scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family,
apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard,
etc.):
The project site is surrounded to the north by the San Bernardino Mountains, to the east by
the Morongo reservation, to the south by single-family and multi-family residential
development and to the west by single-family residential development and vacant land. The
nearest residential dwelling is located within approximately one-hundred (100) feet of the
existing open pits.
14)
Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? The project
has been actively mined since the 1960’s.
The pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project will not be changed to
any significant degree.
15)
Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these
noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed?
The noise generated by the project includes the machinery used to collect, transport, break
up, separate, wash, and remove the rock, gravel and sand material that is mined from the
property. This includes the haul trucks that take the processed material to various off-site
locations. Berms have been constructed around the perimeter of the project site to reduce
the impact to the surrounding areas, including the residential areas to the south and west.
16)
Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees:
No mature or scenic trees exist on the project site
17)
Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains:
The San Gorgonio River flows from west to east within the northern portion of the project site.
The San Gorgonio River is tributary to the Whitewater River, which ultimately flows to the Salton Sea.
Page 25
18)
19)
Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please
contact the City of Banning Water Department.
a.
Residential (gal/day)
Peak use (gal/Day)
b.
Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) 78,000 gpd Peak use (gal/min/ac)
Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal.
108 gpm
Septic Tank
Sewer.
If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate
expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact
the City of Banning Water Department.
a. Residential (gal/day)
b. Commercial/Industrial (gal/day/ac)
1,000
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
20)
Number of residential units: N/A
Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size:
N/A
Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units):
21)
Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents:
Sale Price(s)
$ N/A
Rent (per month) $
to $
to $
22)
Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: Not
23)
Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: Not
24)
applicable
applicable
Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate
School Districts as shown in Attachment:
Page 26
a.
Elementary:
0
b.
Junior High:
0
c.
Senior High
0
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses:
The existing land uses of the project site include the mining/excavation and processing of aggregate
materials for commercial use.
26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type:
The mining operations consist of two construction trailers and a lunch break area that does not exceed
more than 1,500 square feet.
27) Indicate hours of operation:
Mining Operations begin at 7:00am and conclude at 6:00pm, Monday through Friday. In addition,
maintenance operations can extend until 11:00pm at night on weekdays only.
28) Number of employees:
Total: 24
Maximum Shift: 12
Time of Maximum Shift: 7:00am – 4:00pm
29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the
rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary):
Operations at the site include heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, welders, and mechanics.
30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the
City: None
31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should
be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283):
Emissions are created through the use of on-site processing equipment and facilities, work equipment
and trucks.
Page 27
ALL PROJECTS
32)
Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to
provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response.
The project site has been served by the various water, sewer and flood control agencies for
decades, primarily the Banning Heights Water Agency. Their ability to provide adequate service
to the proposed project has been confirmed.
33)
In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
m a t e r i a l s ? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB’s; radioactive
substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note
underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on
the property, as well as the dates of use, if known.
The site has been actively mined for decades. Fuels, oils and solvents have been regularly used
and stored on-site. There are no records of discharges of said materials. The Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) provides a detailed breakdown of all materials utilized on site.
s
34)
Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to
be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall
be shown and labeled on the application plans.
Fuels, oils and solvents will continue to be utilized on the project site, through the anticipated life of
the project. According to information provided by Robertson’s in 2014, the following materials are
held on-site and are maintained and disposed of according to the approved SPCC plan:
1) 1 Diesel AST – 12,000 gal – Diesel;
2) 2 Waste Oil Tanks – 1,000 gal – Used motor oil;
3) 2 Diesel Tanks – 2,000 gal and 250 gal – Diesel;
4) 3 Lubricating Oil Tanks – 300 gal, 220 gal, 180 gal – motor oil;
5) 1 Lubricating Oil Tank – 180 gal – EP4;
6) 1 Lubricating Oil Tank – 140 gal – EP2
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for
adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an
adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Banning.
Date: 12-29-2015
Signature:
Title: Brian Guillot, Acting Community Director
Page 28
ATTACHMENT A
Water Usage
Average use per day
Residential
Single Family
Apt/Condo
600 gal/day
400 gal/day
Commercial/Industrial
General and Regional Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
General Industrial
Industrial Park
3,000 gal/day/ac
1,500 gal/day/ac
2,500 gal/day/ac
3,000 gal/day/ac
Peak Usage
For all uses
Average use x 2.0
Sewer Flows
Residential
Single Family
Apt/Condos
270 gal/day
200 gal/day
Commercial/Industrial
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
General Industrial
Heavy Industrial
2,000 gal/day/ac
1,000 gal/day/ac
1,500 gal/day/ac
3,000 gal/day/ac
Source: City of Banning Water Department 3/2006
Page 29
ATTACHMENT B
Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees:
School Districts
Banning Unified School District
161 West
Williams
Street
Banning, CA 92220
(951) 922-0201
www.banning.k12.ca.us
Beaumont Unified School District
500 Grace Avenue, P.O. Box 187
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 845-1631x301
www.beaumontusd.k12.ca.us
Page 30
CASC
Engineering and Consulting
Figure 1: Project Location
Page 31
534-100-005
534-100-001
534-100-006
San Gorgonio River
~42 acres
534-100-002
534-100-003
534-050-003
West Pit
~36 acres
534-084-001
534-110-001
534-100-004
534-100-007
Exhibit 2
Banning Quarry
Permit Areas
Figure 2: Project Site
534-100-008
Plant Area
~30 acres
534-110-002
Quarry Parcels
534-110-003
534-084-002
534-123-002
534-110-004
0
534-230-001
185
370
740
Feet
South Pit
~57 acres
534-213-002
.
534-110-005
1 inch = 500 feet
534-230-002
Date: June 8, 2015
Page 32
534-100-005
534-100-001
534-100-006
534-100-002
Exhibit 3
Banning Quarry
General Plan
Figure 3: Project Land
Uses
534-050-003
534-100-003
534-100-007
534-100-008
Permit Status
Original
Recent
Unpermitted
111.93 acres
Unpermitted Area
16.80 acres
534-084-001
534-100-004
534-110-001
534-110-002
General Plan
534-110-003
Quarry Parcels
534-084-002
534-123-002
534-110-004
.
534-110-005
0
57.09
534-213-002
534-230-001
185
370
740
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
534-230-002
Date: June 8, 2015
& City of Banning General Plan
Page 33
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Less than Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
The environmental factors checked below (x) would have “No Impact” by this project as indicated
by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
Page 34
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
Brian Guillot,
Community
Development Director
Page 35
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside
a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on projectspecific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to
a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
"Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been ad equately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a)
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
6)
7)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a)
the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b)
the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Page 36
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
□
□
□
x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hi storic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
□
□
□
x
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
x
□
□
□
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
□
□
□
x
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact I.a): The San Bernardino Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains offer impressive scenic vistas
to the north and south of the project site. In that the vast majority of the activities associated with the
proposed project occur below existing ground levels, the project will not have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista.
Impact I.b): The project does not have within its boundaries and thus will not damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings in that the project site is not within
or in the vicinity of a state scenic highway.
Impact I.c): The project involves the continuation of activities associated with the existing mining operation
as well as the reclamation of the site after mining has ceased. The reclamation of the project site could
significantly add to the degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.
Impact I.d): The existing mining operation is not active at night and thus utilizes very low amounts of lighting
for security purposes. The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
Mitigation Measures:
Page 37
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled
by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and
the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols Potentially
adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would Significant
the Project:
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
□
□
□
x
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
Sources: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program. Riverside County Important Farmland 2008, map published September
2009;
Impacts II.a): The proposed project involves land, which is not designated as having prime farmland, unique
farmland or farmland of statewide importance, nor is the land under a Williamson Act contract.
Impacts II.b): The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is the existing zoning for agricultural
uses. The project will not conflict with these measures intended to conserve agricultural lands.
Impacts Il.c): Neither the project site nor the surrounding lands are utilized for agriculture. Thus, the
proposed project does not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
Page 38
Impact II.d): The project site does not contain any lands that are designated as forestland. The proposed
project will not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use.
Impact II.e): The project site does not contain either farmland or forestland. The proposed project does not
involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied Potentially
upon to make the following determinations. Would the Significant
project:
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
□
□
□
x
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
x
□
□
□
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
x
□
□
□
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
x
□
□
□
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a s ubstantial
number of people?
x
□
□
□
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993;
Impact III.a): The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan.
Impacts III.b): The proposed project would generate short-term and long-term emissions that could
contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards.
Impact III-c): The project area is within a state or federally designated non-attainment area for ozone, CO
and PM10. Short-term emissions of NOx, ROC and PM10 during the construction phases and long-term
emissions of NOx, CO and ROC would be above the SCAQMD thresholds for these criteria pollutants.
Impact III-d): The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact III.e): The proposed project could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
Page 39
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
□
□
x
□
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
□
□
x
□
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 o f the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
□
□
x
□
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
□
x
□
□
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
□
□
□
x
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
□
□
□
x
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
A Biological Technical Report was prepared in November of 2015 by VCS Environmental to assess the
impacts of the proposed project on the biological resources existing on the project site and the vicinity. The
report is included as Appendix A to this document and forms the basis for the findings set forth in this Initial
Study.
Impact IV.a): The biological assessment indicates that no federally or state listed threatened or endangered
plant or wildlife species were observed on-site during the 2015 survey. Thus, the project will not have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impact IV.b): The project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a c andidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
Page 40
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Impact IV-c): The Biological assessment finds that the approved mining operation has vested rights and
does not require permitting under sections 401 or 404. Thus, the project will not have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.
Impact IV.d): With compliance with proposed mitigation measures regarding pre-construction surveys for
nesting birds, the project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impact IV.e): The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Impact IV-f): The project site is located within the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) established and administered by the County of Riverside. The project will not
conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan.
BIO-1 Nesting bird habitat: The removal of potential nesting bird habitat within the Study Area will be
conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to the extent feasible. If grading or
disturbance is to occur between February 1 and August 31, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist within no more than 72 hours of scheduled vegetation removal, to determine the presence
of nests or nesting birds. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish buffers around the
vegetation (500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All
work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving
independent from the nest). The on-site biologist will review and v erify compliance with these nesting
boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active nests are
found. Alternatively, a qualified within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any
impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any
follow-up construction avoidance management, a report shall be p repared and s ubmitted to the City for
mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. If vegetation clearing is not completed within 72 hours of
a negative survey during nesting season, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of
nesting birds.
BIO-2 Burrowing Owl: Pre-construction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl within the survey area
where suitable habitat is present shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (as determined by the City of
Banning) within 30 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. If active burrowing owl
burrows are detected during the breeding season, all work within 300 feet of any active burrow will be halted
until that nesting effort is finished. The on-site biologist will review and verify compliance with these
boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing
owl burrows nests are found.
If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season or during the breeding season
and its determined nesting activities have not begun, then passive and/or active relocation may be approved
Page 41
following consultation with the City of Banning. The installation of one-way doors may be installed as part
of a passive relocation program. Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified
biologist when determined to be unoc cupied, and back filled to ensure that animals do not re-enter the
holes/dens. Upon completion of the survey and follow-up construction avoidance management, a report
shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
BIO-3 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse: Pre-construction presence/absence surveys for LAPM within the survey
area where suitable habitat is present shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (within 30 days prior to
commencement of ground disturbing activities and/or suitable habitat vegetation clearing).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a s ubstantial adverse change in the
significance of a hi storical resource as defined in §
15064.5?
□
□
□
x
b) Cause a s ubstantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
□
□
□
x
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
□
□
□
x
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
□
□
□
x
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18: California Government Code Sections 65352.3 et seq.) requires local governments
and agencies to consult with Native American tribal representatives regarding cultural resources before
adopting or amending a general plan. A process has been established, separate from CEQA, by which the
Native American representatives are invited by the local government to participate in the review of the
proposed project so as to address any potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the Native
American tribes.
Impact V.a): The project will not cause a s ubstantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources listed or determined to be
eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or
the lead agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the criteria
established in the section.
The site is heavily disturbed due to the ongoing mining operations and no historical resources exist on the
project site.
Page 42
Impact V.b): The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5. The site is heavily disturbed due to the ongoing mining operations and no
archeological resources exist on the project site.
Impact V.c): The project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature. The site is heavily disturbed due to the ongoing mining operations and no unique
geologic features exist on the project site.
Impact V.d): The project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are proposed.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
x
□
□
□
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
x
□
□
□
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
x
□
□
□
iv) Landslides?
x
□
□
□
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
□
x
□
□
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
x
□
□
□
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 181-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
□
VI. Geology/Soils
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
f) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion
and blowsand, either on or off site?
Page 43
A Soils, Geology, and Mineral Resources Report was prepared by G3SoilWorks, dated December 10, 2015.
The report discusses, in detail, the existing conditions and the potentially significant impacts and risks that
have resulted from the ongoing mining operations.
Impact VI.a.i): Rupture of the existing San Gorgonio Pass Fault poses potentially significant impacts and
risks to the quarry highwalls and slopes and the southerly bank of the San Gorgonio River, north of and
adjacent to the West Pit. Existing residences and infrastructure within the “200-foot setback” adjacent to the
17-acre area in the West Pit and the area near the South Pit near Blanchard Street and Theodore Street are
at high risk should a large earthquake generate seismic shaking and/or ground rupture that causes failure
of the western and or southern quarry highwalls/slopes. Similar risks exist to the Army Corps of Engineers
Levee and the San Gorgonio Riverbed.
Impact VI.a.ii): Strong seismic ground shaking poses potentially significant impacts and risks to the quarry
highwalls and slopes and the southerly bank of the San Gorgonio River, north of and adjacent to the West
Pit. Existing residences and infrastructure within the “200-foot setback” adjacent to the 17-acre area in the
West Pit and the area near the South Pit near Blanchard Street and Theodore Street are at high risk should
a large earthquake generate seismic shaking and/or ground rupture that causes failure of the western and
or southern quarry highwalls/slopes. Similar risks exist to the Army Corps of Engineers Levee and the San
Gorgonio Riverbed.
Impact VI.a.iii): The potential for significant rainfall have potential to raise groundwater levels significantly
to potential for liquefaction during seismic events may become more likely; specifically, directly north of the
site in the San Gorgonio Riverbed where mine operations have replaced native materials with up to 80 feet
of undocumented, rapidly placed infill. Infilled materials are less likely consolidated than the previous wellestablished, thick section of braided stream/fan sediments and, therefore, more susceptible to liquefaction
in the presence of shallow groundwater.
Impact VI.a.iv): Groundwater seepage emanating from the northwest corner of the western pit represents
a hazard with potentially significant impacts on slope stability. Seepage emanating from the toe of the slope
and, worse yet, further upslope has the potential to induce slope failure as the level of effective stress
(intergranular friction that works to push grains together and lock them in place, thereby increasing stability
of a slope) is reduced by introduction of hydrostatic pore pressures (pressures that work to push grains apart
and reduce overall stability of a slope). In addition, seepage flowing through subsurface cracks and void
space can result in piping of sediments from within the slope resulting in material removal by flowing water
and development of void spaces that serve as zones of weakness where failure can occur.
Impact VI.b): With implementation of industry-accepted measures, the project will result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil that is less than significant.
Impact VI.c): The project site is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (See discussions in Impacts VI.a.i –VI.a.iv above).
Impact VI.d): The project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
Impact VI.e): The proposed project will not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater.
Page 44
Impact VI.f): The proposed project will not be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and
blowsand, either on or off site.
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a s ignificant impact on the
environment?
x
□
□
□
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
□
□
□
□
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the
project:
Potentially
Source: OPR’s Technical Advisory.
Existing Setting:
Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on earth as a w hole, including
temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global warming, a related concept, is the observed
increase in average temperature of the earth’s surface and atmosphere. The six major greenhouse gases
(GHGs) identified by the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). GHGs absorb longwave
radiant energy reflected by the earth, which warms the atmosphere. GHGs also radiate long wave radiation
both upward to space and back down toward the surface of the earth. The downward part of this longwave
radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is known as the “greenhouse effect.” The potential effects of global
climate change may include rising surface temperatures, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme
heat days per year, and more drought years.
CO2 is an odorless, colorless natural GHG. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead
organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic
outgassing. Anthropogenic (human caused) sources of CO2 are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, wood,
butane, propane, etc. CH4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. N20, also known
as laughing gas, is a c olorless GHG. Some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon
production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to the atmospheric load of GHGs.
HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons (whose
production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol) for automobile air conditioners and
refrigerants. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor
manufacture. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation
in electric power transmission and di stribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor
manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
Events and activities, such as the industrial revolution and the increased combustion of fossil fuels (e.g.,
gasoline, diesel, coal, etc.), have heavily contributed to the increase in atmospheric levels of GHGs. An air
quality analysis of GHGs is a much different analysis than the analysis of criteria pollutants for the following
reasons. For criteria pollutants significance thresholds are based on daily emissions because attainment or
non-attainment is based on daily exceedances of applicable ambient air quality standards. Further, several
Page 45
ambient air quality standards are based on relatively short-term exposure effects on human health, e.g.,
one-hour and eight-hour. Since the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 100 years, for
example, the effects of GHGs are longer-term, affecting global climate over a relatively long time frame. As
a result, the SCAQMD’s current position is to evaluate GHG effects over a longer timeframe than a single
day.
In its CEQA & Climate Change document (January 2008), the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) identifies many potential GHG significance threshold options. The CAPCOA
document indicates that establishing quantitative thresholds is a balance between setting the level low
enough to capture a substantial portion of future residential and non-residential development, while also
setting a threshold high enough to exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small
fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. Two potential significance thresholds were 10,000
metric tons per year and 25,000 metric tons per year.
Finally, another approach to determining significance is to estimate what percentage of the total inventory
of GHG emissions are represented by emissions from a single project. If emissions are a relatively small
percentage of the total inventory, it is possible that the project will have little or no effect on global climate
change.
According to available information, the statewide inventory of CO2 equivalent emissions is as follows: 1990
GHG emissions were estimated to equal 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, and 2020 GHG
emissions are projected to equal 600 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, under a business as usual
scenario. Interpolating an inventory for the year 2011 results in an estimated inventory of approximately 121
million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Interpolating an inventory for the year 2012 results in an estimated
inventory of approximately 127 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. These amounts assume that between
1990 and 2020 there is an average increase of 5.76 million tons per year of GHG.
Impacts VII.a): It is generally accepted by the scientific community that global climate change is not confined
to a particular project area and is the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. The
issue of global climate change represents a cumulative environmental impact in that no single project
generates enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to significantly influence the global climate. The
State of California has established a comprehensive program with the objective of substantially reducing
greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40-plus years. Implementation of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, 2006)
and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375, 2008) will address greenhouse gas emissions on a statewide cumulative basis.
The project will generate operational greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment. For purposes of this Initial Study, it will be as sumed that the
proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts.
Impacts VII.b): The California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan represents the state’s greenhouse gas
emissions reduction strategy to achieve the state’s target for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, as
established by AB 32. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), by way of its 2012 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, has established a development plan for the
Southern California region that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources pursuant
to the region’s reduction goals under SB 375. The City of Banning is also a participating agency in the
Subregional Climate Action Plan issued by the Western Riverside Council of Governements (WRCOG) in
September 2014.
Page 46
The project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an a gency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
□
x
□
□
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
□
x
□
□
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
□
□
□
x
d) Be located on a s ite which is included on a l ist of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
□
□
□
x
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
x
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
Potentially
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a s afety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Source: Phase I ESA Report, prepared by G3 Soilworks on December 10, 2015.
Page 47
Impact VIII.a): With the implementation of State and local standards and regulations for the transport, use
and disposal of hazardous materials, the proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact VIII.b): With the implementation of State and local standards and regulations for the transport, use
and disposal of hazardous materials, the proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
Impact VIII.c): The proposed project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impact VIII.d): The proposed project is not located on a site, which is included on a l ist of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Impact VIII.e-f): The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and thus would not result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment
is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and thus the project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area.
Impact VIII.g): The proposed project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact VIII.h): The proposed project is not located in an area that is considered to be subject to wildland fire
hazards and thus would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
□
□
□
x
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a ne t deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
□
□
x
□
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
x
□
□
□
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the
project:
Potentially
Page 48
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
x
□
□
□
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
□
□
x
□
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
x
□
□
□
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
□
□
□
x
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
□
□
□
x
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
x
□
□
□
j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow?
□
□
□
x
Impact IX.a): The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Impact IX.b): The proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
Impact IX.c): The proposed project has the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Significant lateral stream erosion along the south
bank of the San Gorgonio River is visually apparent and represents a significant hazard relative to the
integrity of the northern quarry highwall within the 17-acre portion of the West Pit.
Impact IX.d): The proposed project has the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Should the
area be subjected to an extended period of heavy rain, flooding could pose a significant hazard, specifically
along the lower portions of the San Gorgonio River adjacent to the quarry excavations in the West Pit. In
that lateral erosion along the right bank has reduced the width of the emplaced berm, a significant storm
with a hi gh water volume and velocity would increase the lateral scour potential which could result in a
breach of the berm and flooding of the West Pit. Additionally, portions of the westerly adjacent Banning
Levee, which would be subjected to similar erosion conditions, are also at risk.
Page 49
Impact IX.e): The proposed project will not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
Impact IX.f): The proposed project has the potential to substantially degrade water quality in that the open
pit intersects the water table whereby contaminants introduced at the mine site have the potential to degrade
water quality not only onsite, but also down gradient. The open pit can be viewed as a “gaping wound” that
exposes the water table to potential contamination that would easily be buffered by 160+ feet of alluvial
cover. Instead, contaminants such as hydraulic oil, diesel fuel, etc. have the potential to be introduced
directly into groundwater (i.e. seepage) entering and leaving the site.
Impact IX.g): The proposed project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
Impact IX.h): The proposed project will not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows.
Impact IX.i): The proposed project could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
Impact IX.j): The proposed project will not cause inundation by seiche or mudflow.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
□
□
□
x
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
x
□
□
□
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
□
□
□
x
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
Source: City of Banning General Plan and Municipal Code.
Impact X.a): The proposed project will not physically divide an established community.
Impact X.b): The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for the 17acre area in the westernmost portion of the project site. The project, by definition, conflicts with the
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
Page 50
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Additionally, the project will is non-compliant with the setback requirements for mining operations from
residential land uses.
Impact X.c): The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
□
□
□
x
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
□
□
□
x
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
Impact XI.a): The historical and ongoing mining operations on the project site are implementing the goals
and objectives of the General Plan in terms of utilizing the known mineral resources to the benefit of the
region. The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
Impact XI.b): The historical and ongoing mining operations on the project site are implementing the goals
and objectives of the General Plan in terms of utilizing the known mineral resources to the benefit of the
local community. The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
□
□
□
Page 51
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
x
□
□
□
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
□
□
□
x
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
x
□
□
□
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
□
□
□
x
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
□
□
□
x
Sources:
Impact XII.a): The proposed project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Impact XII.b): The proposed project could expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels.
Impact XII.c): The proposed project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Impact XII.d): The proposed project could result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Impact XII.e): The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and thus would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Impact XII.f): The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and thus would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Page 52
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
□
□
x
□
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
□
□
□
x
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
□
□
□
x
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
Impact XIII.a): The General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone proposed by the project in the 17-acre
area in the westernmost portion of the project site will result in an incremental decrease in the land available
for residential development. As such, the proposed project will not induce substantial population growth in
an area beyond that which has already been planned for, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
Impact XIII.b): The proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Impact XIII.c): The proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
□
□
x
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire protection?
Page 53
b) Police protection?
□
□
□
x
c) Schools?
□
□
□
x
d) Parks?
□
□
□
x
e) Other public facilities?
□
□
□
x
Impacts XIV.a-e): No significant impacts are anticipated. The consolidation of the mining operations and
reclamation plans will not result in changes to existing service requirement levels. The General Plan
Amendment and Change of Zone will result in a slight incremental decrease to service requirements.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
□
□
□
x
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
□
□
□
x
XV. RECREATION
Impact XV.a): The proposed project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated. The consolidation of the mining operations and reclamation plans will not result in changes to
existing service requirement levels. The General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will result in a slight
incremental decrease to the future use of recreation facilities.
Impact XV.b): The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Page 54
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
x
□
□
x
□
□
□
□
□
□
x
x
□
□
□
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
□
□
□
x
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
x
□
□
□
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and f reeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No
Impact
Impact XVI.a): The proposed project could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit.
Impact XVI.b): The proposed project could conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
Impact XVI.c): The proposed project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
Impact XVI.d): The proposed project could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Impact XVI.e): The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access.
Page 55
Impact XVI.f): The proposed project could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
□
□
□
x
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
□
□
□
x
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
□
□
□
x
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
□
□
□
x
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
□
□
x
□
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
□
□
□
x
g) Comply with federal, state, and l ocal statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
□
□
□
x
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the
project:
Potentially
Impact XVII.a): The proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Impact XVII.b): The proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Impact XVII.c): The proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
Page 56
Impact XVII.d): The proposed project will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
Impact XVII.e): The proposed project will result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Impact XVII.f): The proposed project will be s erved by a l andfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Impact XVII.g): The proposed project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and r egulations
related to solid waste.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
□
□
□
x
□
□
□
□
□
x
□
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Findings of Fact:
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Findings of Fact:
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Page 57
Findings of Fact:
a) The proposed project could degrade the quality of the environment. Depending on the extent of said
degradation, the project could substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) As noted above, the proposed project may have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable in the areas of air quality and transportation/circulation. Additionally, changes in CEQA policy
regarding greenhouse gas emissions may reveal that the project has potentially significant impacts in these
areas as well.
c) The proposed project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as per
California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D).
XIX. REFERENCES
City of Banning General Plan
Riverside County, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Approved June 7, 2003.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.
Southern California Association of Governments, Adopted 2012 Growth Forecast. Available online at
http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm. Accessed January 2014.
State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program. Riverside County Important Farmland 2008, Sheet 1 of 3, map published
State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control. EnviroStor database. Available online at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed January 2014.
State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control. Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and
Substances Sites database. Available online at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.
Accessed January 2014.
State of California, Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Available online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/. Accessed January 2014.
State of California, Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Technical Advisories on Climate Change and
Climate Action Planning. Available online at: http://opr.ca.gov/s_ceqaandclimatechange.php. Accessed
October 2012.
Page 58
State of California, Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. All Hazards Site Search. Available online
at: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/search/. Accessed January 2014.
United States Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places over
50,000. Available online at: http://census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html. Accessed January
2014.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database. Updated last September 7, 2012.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/cerclis/cerclis_query.html. Accessed January 2014.
Mineral Resources Evaluation, G3SoilWorks, December 2015.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report, G3SoilWorks, December 2015.
Soils and Geology Report, G3SoilWorks, December 2015.
Page 59
Banning Unified School District
Kathleen McNamara, E.D. Superintendent
Superintendent’s Office
161 W. Williams St.
Banning, CA 92220
Beaumont Basin Watermaster
c/o Aklufi and Wysocki
Joseph S. Aklufi, Esq., Env. Review
3403 Tenth St., Ste 610
Riverside, CA 92501
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
Tony Lara, Environmental Review
560 Magnolia Ave.
Beaumont, CA 92223
Beaumont School District
Dr. Barry Kayrell, Superintendent
Superintendent’s Office
500 Grace Ave.
Beaumont, CA 92223
City of Banning
Director of
Public Works Dept.
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning
Director Electric Dept.
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning
Captain Ted Yarbrough
Fire Department
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, CA 92220
SCAQMD, Office of Planning & Rules Attn:
Steve Smith
21865 E. Copley Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
City of Banning
Chief Leonard Purvis
Police Department
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning
Jae Von Klug, Director Economic/
Redevelopment Dept.
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning
Mr. Oscar Orci
Planning Department
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning
Mr. Brian Guillot
Planning Department
99 E. Ramsey St.
Banning, CA 92220
City of Beaumont
Ernest A. Egger, Director
Planning Dept.
550 E. 6th St.
Beaumont, CA 92223
City of Beaumont
Deepak Moorjani, P.E., Director
Public Works Department
550 E. 6th St.
Beaumont, CA 92223
Riverside County Clerk
Ms. Tammy Marshall
Clerk of the Board
2720 Gateway Dr.
Riverside, CA 92507
County of Riverside
Carolyn Syms Luna, EPD Director
Environmental Programs Department
4080 Lemon St., 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
County of Riverside
Juan Perez, Director of TLMA
Riverside, CA 92502
RCTC
Steve Keel
Environmental Review
4080 Lemon St., 3rd Floor, MS1032
Riverside, CA 92501-3609
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Mr. Franklin A. Darcy
Dept. of Planning & Economic Dev.
49750 Seminole Dr.
Cabazon, CA 92230
Riverside County BOS, 5th District
Marion Ashley, Supervisor
Riverside, CA 92502
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Di.
Randy Van Gelder, Assistant General Mgr.
1350 South “E” St.
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Riverside County CHA
Department of Environmental Health
District Environmental Services Division
4065 County Circle Dr., Room 104
Riverside, CA 92503
Riverside County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District
Theresa Tung, Sr. Civil Engineer
1995 Market St.
Riverside, CA 92501
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Colorado River Basin
Kirk Larkin, Environmental Review
73-720 Fred Waring Dr., Ste 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Riverside LAFCO
George Spiliotis
3850 Vine St., Ste 110
San Bernardino National Forest
Jeanne Wade Evans, Forest Supervisor
602 S. Tippecanoe Ave.
San Bernardino, CA 92408
State Clearinghouse-OPR 1400
Tenth Street, Room 222
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
Jeff Davis, GM of Environmental Review
1210 Beaumont Ave.
Beaumont, CA 92223
Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter
Joan Taylor
Tahquitz Group
1850 Smoke Tree Lane
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Eastern Information Center
Dept. of Anthropology
University of California
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Anthony Madrigal, Jr., InterimChairperson
PO Box 391760
Anza, CA 92539
Susan E. Savolainen
1610 W. Barbour St.
Banning, CA 92220
Waste Management of Inland Valley
Steve Kanow, Director of Operations
Operations Dept./Environmental Review
800 S. Temescal St.
Corona, CA 92879
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Britt W. Wilson, Cultural Resources
Project Manager
49750 Seminole Dr.
Cabazon CA 92230
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Gregory Blackburn
CFM, Branch Chief
Floodplain Management & Insurance
Branch
1111 B d
S i 1200
Department of Water Resources
Dean Messer, Chief
Division of Environmental Services
3500 Industrial Blvd.
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Alvino Siva
2034 W. Westward
Banning, CA 92220
Southern California Gas Co.
251 E. 1st Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Greg Holmes, Unit Chief of Brownfields
and Env. Restoration Program
5796 Corporate Ave.
Cypress, CA 90630
Ice Chairman
PO Box 391670
Anza, CA 92539
Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
Southern California Association of
Governments
Huasha Liu, Manager
Program Development & Evaluation
Division
818 W. Seventh Street, 12th Floor
Ramona Band of Mission Indians
Joseph Hamilton, Vice Chairman
PO Box 391670
Anza, CA 92539
California Geological Survey
Derek Chernow, Acting Director
801 K Street, MS 12-30
Cherry Valley Acres and Neighbors
P.O. Box 3257
Beaumont, CA 92223
Verizon of California
Attn: Louis Crespo
3610 Central Ave Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92506
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
Cultural Resources Department
Attn: Joseph Ontiveros
PO Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92583
State of California Department of
Conservation
John M. Lowie, Program Manager
801 K Street
Southern California Edison
Environmental Affairs
2244 Walnut Grove Ave.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Mountain Air Ranch Estate
Neighborhoods
Attn: Charlie Sprang
4175 Hillside Dr.
Banning, CA 92220
Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians
Katherine Saubel, Spokesperson
PO Box 189
Warner, CA 92086
California Governor's Office of
Emergency
Services
Henry Renteria, Director
3650 Schriever Ave.
California Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco Office (Headquarters)
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
City of Beaumont Planning Department
Attn: Ernie Egger
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
US Army Corps of Engineers
Engineering / 408 Permits
40015 Sierra Highway, Suite B145
Palmdale, CA 93550
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
Banning Public Library
21 W. Nicolet Street
Banning, CA 92220
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Attn: Planning Director
Riverside, CA 92501
Supervisor Marion Ashley
5th Supervisorial District
Riverside, CA 92501
CDFW Headquarters
Habitat Conservation Planning Branch
1416 9th Street, 12th Floor,
WRCOG
Attn: Rick Bishop
4080 Lemon St., 3rd Floor, MS1032
Riverside, CA 92501
Department of Transportation
CALTRANS District #8 – Planning
464 W. Fourth St., MS726
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
Building Industry Association
Attn: Executive Director
3891 11th Street
Riverside, CA 92501
SCAG
Eric Roth, Manager Intergovernmental
Review
818 W. Seventh St., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
California Air Resources Board
1001 “I” Street
City of Calimesa
Attn: Gus Romo, Director
Community Development Dept.
908 Park Ave.
Calimesa, CA 92320
Sierra Club/San Gorgonio Chapter
4079 Mission Inn Ave.
Riverside, CA 92501
Center for Biological Diversity PMB
477
8033 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90046

Notice of Preparation City of Banning Robertson`s Quarry

Transcription

Similar documents

FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY

Events - PDAC Mining Matters Diamond in the Rough Golf Classic

NBI Complaint vs Tallado PDF 13 - Sagip

June 2012 - Banning Chamber of Commerce

March 2013 - Banning Chamber of Commerce

SCZ FS WEBv3-0812

Aley Niobium Project

Rehabilitation of mining areas in Durango, Mexico

Mining Park of Almadén

Resource Book Banning Unified School District