Agenda packet, regular meeting, third session — Banning City Council, June 11, 2024 (part 5 of 8)

RESOLUTION 2024-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, (1) APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164, ALLOWING THE SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 47 GROSS ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO THREE PARCELS; (2) AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008

AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THAT DECISION AND PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED 619,959 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING, INCLUDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND A COMBINED 34,000 SQUARE

FEET OF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN: 419- 140-057); AND (3) ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF,

INCLUDING FINDING OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH # 2020029074)
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2020029074) prepared for, and approved, Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SLVNSP) (Ordinance 1571 for Zone Change 20-3501).

Amendment No. 5 revised the Specific Plan Land Use Plan from Retail Commercial (Auto Dealer) to Business Park & Warehouse (BW), Office & Professional (OP), and Retail & Service (RS), and revised the permitted land uses, development standards (including maximum building height, setbacks, open space, landscaping, parking, and signage), and design guidelines for the development and implementation provisions of the SLVNSP; and WHEREAS, the EIR for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP is now final, beyond challenge, and is conclusively presumed to comply with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the interests of Sun Lakes Highland, LLC (Applicant), an application was submitted for approval of proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 (TPM 21- 4001) to subdivide approximately 47.11 acres of vacant real property into three commercial and industrial parcels, and for Design Review No. 21-7008, to construct a 619,959 square-foot industrial warehouse building with 10,000 square feet of office space, and six retail/commercial buildings totaling 34,000 square feet and associated utility, parking, roadway, and landscaping improvements (all together, the “Project”), on real property identified as APN 419-140-057; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, and December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on the Project, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of or in opposition to the Project. At the conclusion of the public hearing on December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-16, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 and approving Design Review No. 21-7008, including conditions of for approval of the Project. Pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 16.14, the Planning Commission’s decision has been interpreted by City Staff and the City Council as a recommendation to the City Council for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Section 17.68.100, three applications seeking to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision on the Project were received during the appeal period following the Planning Commission’s action; and 759
Resolution 2024-88

Page 2 of 23 ends

WHEREAS, an appeal application was received from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance and was subsequently rejected as being incomplete because it did not state the grounds or reasons for its appeal, did not request a specific action, and incorrectly described the project; and
WHEREAS, an appeal application was received from Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), who subsequently withdrew its appeal on January 18, 2022, and announced its support for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger submitted an appeal on behalf of Appellant, Pass Area Action Group (PAG), and a three-page letter on behalf of Appellant, which was supplemented by a 428-page letter submitted via email on January 24, 2022 (the “Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 and the Appeal hearing on Design Review No. 21-7008 was scheduled for January 31, 2022, and in compliance with applicable law, the City provided public notice of the public hearing by advertising in the Record Gazette newspaper on January 21, 2022, and by mailing notices to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the City subsequently received requests from both Pass Area Action Group and the Applicant to continue the Appeal hearing to allow for additional time to review the materials related to the Project; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the requests from both Appellant and Applicant for a continuance of the public hearing, at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting held on January 25, 2022, the City Council voted to cancel the Appeal hearing previously noticed January 31, 2022, and to reschedule the public hearing to February 17, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City provided public notice of the rescheduled public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 and the Appeal hearing on Design Review 21-7008 by advertising in the Record Gazette newspaper on February 4, 2022, and by again mailing (on February 3, 2022) notices to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject site; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2022, the City Council of the City of Banning conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal, at which time all interested persons, including Appellant and Applicant, were given an opportunity to speak and to present both oral and written evidence in support of and in opposition to the Appeal. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 17, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-14, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, approving Design Review 21-7008 and denying the Appeal, including Conditions of Approval of the Project, and adopting an Addendum to the certified EIR prepared for Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SCH # 2020029074); and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, PAG filed a Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“Petition”) with the Riverside County Superior Court (Case No. CVRI2201482), challenging the City of Banning’s approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the lawsuit alleged that the City failed to provide a fair hearing due to alleged bias by Councilmembers Hamlin, Sanchez, and Wallace. The lawsuit also contended that the City violated CEQA and the City’s General Plan in approving the Project, and that the findings in 760
Resolution 2024-88

Page 3 of 23 ends

support of the Project were not supported by substantial evidence; and WHEREAS, following briefing and a hearing on the merits, the trial court issued a ruling finding only that the City did not provide a fair hearing based on the court’s conclusion that thenCouncilmember Hamlin was biased in favor of the Project. The court rejected all claims of bias as to Councilmember Wallace and Councilmember Sanchez, stating in its ruling that “their statements do not overcome the presumption that they are unbiased. There has been no showing of a financial or personal interest in the Project and no specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias….” The court also rejected in its entirety all of PAG’s substantive challenges, finding that the City fully complied with CEQA, that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and that the City’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, as discussed further below. As the court concluded in its ruling, the court “does not find that Petitioner [PAG] has carried its burden of proof on any remaining issue and would not grant the writ but for the fair hearing issue.”; and WHEREAS, teh court entered judgment and issued a writ of mandate directing the City to set aside and vacate the prior approval and to reconsider the Project without the participation of Councilmember Hamlin; and
WHEREAS, the City provided public notice of a public hearing on the Project by advertising in the Record Gazette newspaper on May 31, 2024, and by mailing (on May 30, 2024) notices to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the City Council of the City of Banning conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested persons, including Appellant and Applicant, were given an opportunity to speak and to present both oral and written evidence in support of and in opposition to the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including supporting reports by City Staff, written materials timely received by the City, and information provided during public meetings.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Banning does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:

SECTION 1: Recitals. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals above are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: Environmental Findings.

A. The Project has been reviewed in connection with the requirements of CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21000\ et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq.). Based upon all of the applications, plans, submittals, and evidence presented to the Planning Commission on October 19, 2021 and December 1, 2021, the additional submittals from the Appellant and the Applicant, and the public hearing held on June 11, 2024 (including written and oral staff reports and supporting documentation, together with 761
Resolution 2024-88

Page 4 of 23 ends

public testimony), and in the exercise of its independent judgment based upon the whole of the record and the evidence presented to it, this Council hereby specifically finds and concludes, as provided in the succeeding subsections of this Section 2, as follows with respect to environmental review related to the Project.

B. The EIR prepared for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP analyzed the potential development of 877,298 square feet of industrial and warehouse uses, 52,065 square feet of medical office uses, and 37,189 square feet of retail uses. The EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts from this type of development in the areas of: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. The EIR concluded that Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP had the potential to result in a net increase of building square footage and that certain air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable even after the imposition of mitigation and regulatory compliance. The City Council determined that the benefits of Amendment No. 5 outweighed the Amendment’s environmental impacts, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on December 8, 2020. The EIR was certified on December 8, 2020, and was never challenged. It is now final, beyond challenge, and conclusive in all respects.

C. Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP was adopted on December 8, 2020, by way of City Council Resolution No. 2020-141. Its text was added into the City’s Zoning Code portion of the Municipal Code by way of Ordinance No. 1571, which was introduced on December 8, 2020, adopted on January 12, 2021, and became effective on February 11, 2021. It was never challenged and is now final, beyond challenge, and in effect for all purposes.

D. The Project proposes a smaller development than that analyzed in the EIR. The Project proposes 619,959 square feet of industrial use (split between 75% [or 464,969 square feet] of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use and 25% [or 154,990 square feet] of highcube cold storage warehouse use), and 34,000 square feet of retail uses, along with associated utility, parking, roadway, and landscaping improvements. The Project does not include development of any of the office uses analyzed in the EIR.

E. The Project is found to be consistent with the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP). The Project is located outside of any MSHCP criteria area and mitigation is provided through payment of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee.

F. The mitigation measures imposed as part of the prior EIR remain valid and applicable to the Project and are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Section 5, Pages 97 through 109 of the Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist. The same benefits described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP remain applicable to the Project.

G. The prior EIR, which was a “Program EIR,” has been reviewed to determine if the Project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the EIR. Based on this review and analysis, an Addendum/Consistency Checklist, entitled “Banning Point Addendum to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Environmental Impact Report” (updated 762
Resolution 2024-88

Page 5 of 23 ends

version dated February 10, 2022) (“Addendum”) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162, calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR, have occurred.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c) further provides that an “addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR” and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) provides that a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included” in the addendum, the agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record.

H. The Addendum evaluated the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the prior EIR to determine whether any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred.

I. The City Council has considered whether additional environmental review is required for the Project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the now-final EIR and in the Addendum. All environmental impacts of Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP (including those impacts related to the development of industrial and warehouse uses and retail uses, such as those proposed by the Project) were analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated as set forth in the EIR (SCH# 2020029074) that was certified on December 8, 2020; this conclusion is supported by the detailed Addendum and its supporting technical reports and data. Therefore, any potential environmental impacts resulting from the types of land development proposed by the Project already have been analyzed and disclosed in the certified EIR that is now final in all respects and is beyond challenge. Furthermore, a subsequent EIR is not required as discussed below.

J. Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the corresponding CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provide that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, “major revisions” of the EIR are needed to reflect (i) substantial changes to the project involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (ii) substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (iii) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, showing that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, or significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, or mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. At this point in the process, “in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired, and the 763
Resolution 2024-88

Page 6 of 23 ends

question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process.” (Bowman v. City of Petaluma (2008) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073- 1074.) As a result, any issues with the earlier EIR that were raised or could have been raised are barred from further consideration. (Comm. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 50.)
K. No information has been presented to the City demonstrating that any of the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166, or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163, are present.
(1) No information has been presented to the City to demonstrate that any substantial changes have occurred with respect to the Project involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Rather, the Project proposes the same type of land uses analyzed in the EIR and approved as part of Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP, but it is smaller in scope. The Project therefore serves to implement the vision for the commercial and industrial core of Highland Springs Avenue and the Interstate 10 freeway, which is described in detail within Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP, and is consistent the land use envisioned in the SLVNSP and its accompanying EIR. Furthermore, the Addendum comprehensively analyzed the Project in comparison to the EIR in each environmental impact area and concluded that there are no new or substantially greater impacts than those previously disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated (to the extent feasible) in the EIR. The City Council finds that the Addendum, including its supporting technical reports, constitutes substantial evidence in support of this conclusion. (2) No information has been presented to the City to demonstrate that any substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Project remains consistent with the project described in the prior EIR for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP and is smaller in scope than the development anticipated in that document and approved in Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP. There have been no changes to the SLVNSP area that would alter the ability of the Project to remain consistent with the SLVNSP and the environmental impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
(3) No information has been presented to the City to demonstrate that there is any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete showing that the Project will have any significant or more severe effects than those discussed in the prior EIR, or that additional mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially reduce any significant effects on the environment disclosed in the prior EIR. No information, let alone substantial evidence, has been presented to suggest that the current Project has environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated as set forth in the EIR. No information regarding any purported greater environmental impacts, or the need for additional mitigation or alternatives, has been presented.
764
Resolution 2024-88

Page 7 of 23 ends

(4) The court concurred with the conclusions above in Paragraphs (K)(1)-(3) of this Section 2. As the court stated in its ruling, “There is no dispute but that the differences between the original project [that described in Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP] and the current version of the Project do not result in new significant environmental impacts. Indeed, the current version of the Project is significantly smaller than the original project.” The court thus found that “substantial evidence supported the City’s decision … to prepare an addendum instead of a supplemental or subsequent EIR for the Project.”
L. The Appellant’s contention in its January 24, 2022, letter that preparation of a programlevel EIR for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP was not proper is a time-barred attack on that EIR. The EIR was never challenged and is lawful, valid, and conclusive for all purposes. Furthermore, the SLVNSP is a Specific Plan and therefore is a legislative enactment and environmental review at the program, or plan, level was appropriate.

M. The Appellant’s contention in its January 24, 2022, letter that the Project constitutes a “new” project not within the scope of that studied in the EIR is unfounded. As shown in the Addendum, and its supporting technical reports in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, health risk assessment, trip generation memorandum, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, Project impacts are not greater or more impactful than previously disclosed, analyzed, and approved in connection with Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP, including considering the addition of 154,990 square feet of high-cube cold storage warehouse use within the overall 619,959 square feet of industrial use. The Addendum and its supporting documentation expressly considered the use of high-cube cold storage industrial uses and found impacts to be within the scope of those analyzed in the EIR. The City Council expressly finds that the analysis contained in the Addendum and its supporting technical reports is credible, supported by facts, and constitutes substantial evidence.

N. The Appellant’s contention in its January 24, 2022 letter that the EIR’s analysis in the areas of transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise is insufficient to apply to the Project is unfounded. The City Council finds that several of Appellant’s contentions, including those set forth in the technical memoranda attached to their letter, are unfounded; rely on flawed assumptions (including but not limited to those related to horsepower, emission factors, and trip generation rates) leading to incorrect conclusions; are speculative (such as unsupported assumptions about the use of emergency diesel generators); or amount at most to a disagreement among experts, including over issues such as trip generation and trip lengths that were settled in the EIR and are now beyond challenge. A disagreement among experts is not a sufficient reason to set aside an EIR and a lead agency such as the City may choose to accept the determinations and conclusions in the EIR if they are supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15151.) The City Council further finds that other of Appellant’s contentions, such as that no vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis or noise impacts analysis have occurred, are factually incorrect and therefore lack foundation. The City Council also finds that other contentions, including those regarding the efficacy of mitigation measures imposed as part of Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP and its accompanying EIR, are time-barred and an impermissible collateral attack on the prior EIR. The City Council expressly finds that substantial evidence supports the conclusions in the certified EIR, and that no new information has been presented to invalidate these conclusions. 765
Resolution 2024-88

Page 8 of 23 ends

O. The Appellant’s contention in its January 24, 2022, letter that a new cumulative impacts analysis was required is incorrect. The prior EIR included a cumulative impacts analysis; no such analysis is also required as a separate, standalone component of a determination that a subsequent EIR is not required.

P. The Appellant’s contention in its January 24, 2022, letter that the City was required to separately notify South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board of the Project is incorrect. There is no obligation to notify other public agencies of an addendum or a determination that a project does not require additional environmental review. Furthermore, other public agencies were properly notified of the preparation of the prior EIR and then subsequently had the opportunity to comment on it. SCAQMD provided a comment on the notice of preparation of the EIR and then did not submit any comments on the EIR.

Q. The City Council finds, in the exercise of its independent judgment and based on substantial evidence in the whole of the record, that no further environmental review is required, including pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163, because (i) the Project will not have new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the EIR; (ii) all applicable mitigation measures in the EIR remain applicable to the Project and are imposed on the Project as a condition of approval; and (iii) the Project will not require any new mitigation measures, all as documented in the Addendum. The Addendum and its supporting technical reports and memoranda constitute substantial evidence in support of the City Council’s conclusion and findings. The City Council hereby adopts the Addendum.

R. The Community Development Director shall cause to be a filed a Notice of Determination for the Project in accordance with CEQA.

S. The custodian of records for the documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is the City Clerk of the City of Banning. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Division located at 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California, 92220.

SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Findings. Subsection (B) of Section 16.14.050 of the Banning Municipal Code provides that any action taken by the City Council with respect to Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 shall be supported by the findings required by Sections 66427.1, 66473.5, 66474, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the California Government Code and Section 21100 of the California Public Resources Code.

A. Applicable Findings. The City Council finds that Sections 66427.1 does not apply because this Project does not involve the conversion of residential real property into a condominium project, a community apartment project, or a stock cooperative project. The City Council also finds that Section 66474.1 does not apply because the City Council’s action in this matter relates to a Tentative Parcel Map and not a Final Parcel Map. The City Council finds that the other sections noted in the introductory paragraph of this Section do apply to Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164. The following subsections are intended to provide the required findings in accordance with Government Code Sections 66473.5, 66474, and 66474.6 and Public Resources Code Section 21100. 766
Resolution 2024-88

Page 9 of 23 ends

B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the City’s General Plan and with the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(1) The General Plan land use designations for the site are General Commercial and Business Park with a Specific Plan Overlay. The Specific Plan designations for the site are Business & Warehouse District and Retail and Service District. The Community Development Element of the General Plan provides that Specific Plan land use designations become the General Plan overlay land use designations in the Specific Plan area.
(2) Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 will divide the existing 47.11-acre property into three parcels consistent with the land uses proposed to be developed on the site and consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations, as more fully explained in the succeeding subsections below. The subsections provided in this Subsection (B) provide the findings required by Government Code Sections 66473.5 and 66474(a).
(3) The proposed Project consists of the development of an industrial warehouse building of 619,959 square feet of gross floor area, which includes 10,000 square feet of office and a separate parcel containing six (6) retail/commercial buildings totaling 34,000 square feet to the south varying in size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet.
(4) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains goals, policies, and programs for the development of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. With respect to the industrial uses, the General Plan specifies the general goal that “A balanced mix of non-polluting industrial land uses which provide local jobs for the City’s residents.” The Project will provide a non-polluting industrial use and provide jobs for City residents. Specifically, the industrial portion of the Project is not an industrial factory and the uses within the buildings and the warehouse operation are subject to several mitigation measures that require the use of electrical hookups at loading docks (AQ- 3), truck idling limitations (AQ-4), the use of electric or natural gas service equipment to reduce fuel consumption and emissions (AQ-5) and a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. In addition, other mitigation measures are imposed on the Project during the grading and construction of the site, including the use of low VOC paint (AQ-1) and limitations on grading activities to ensure emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. With these mitigation measures, the Project will not exceed local significance thresholds for emissions and ensure that the Project satisfies the non-polluting goal for industrial uses as provided in the General Plan. (5) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains several policies applicable to industrial development projects including: Policy 6 that provides that the land use map shall include sufficient industrial lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands; Policy 8 that provides that industrial lands shall be located on major roadways with good access to Interstate 10, to assure that potential traffic impacts associated with tractor-trailers are minimized; and Policy 767
Resolution 2024-88

Page 10 of 23 ends

10 that provides that the Zoning Ordinance shall include principles, design standards and guidelines which encourage development of high quality industrial projects.” The Project is consistent with Policy 6 because the size of the portion of the site designated for business and warehouse uses is relatively large (30.22 acres) and is appropriately located immediately adjacent to the I-10 freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the north of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse use is located on the portion of the site that will be screened and buffered from residential uses to the south and east by the retail and service buildings to be located in the Retail and Services District that exists between the residential uses in Sun Lakes to the south of Sun Lakes Boulevard and the industrial building and by the Office and Professional District uses in the future that will exist between the warehouse uses and the residential and assisted living uses to the east of the Project site. The Project is consistent with Policy 8 because it will be immediately adjacent to Interstate 10 on the north, and the lot configuration and access points into and out of the site are designed to provide for the minimum amount of travel distance on Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and then onto Interstate 10 and eventually from Sun Lakes Boulevard to the Sunset Avenue and onto Interstate 10 when the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is completed. Finally, the Project, as more fully explained in connection the Project’s consistency with the Specific Plan includes a variety of design elements, setbacks, landscaping features that will provide a high quality industrial project. (6) The Economic Development Element of the General Plan provides the goal for a balanced, broadly based economy that provides a full range of economic and employment opportunities, while maintaining high standards of development and environmental protection. The Project will increase the availability of job opportunities for not only warehouse employees but also retail and service based business opportunities. The Applicant has asserted that the Project would create as many as 722 local jobs in the City of Banning. The proposed development and buildings will improve the City’s property tax base, boost sales tax, provide jobs and revenue for the City’s economy. The Applicant has asserted that the Project would generate approximately $4,119,780 to the City in Development Impact Fees and as much as $325,000 in annual tax revenues to the City. The Project is also consistent with the following applicable Economic Development Element Policies:

Policy 2 for the City to take a proactive role in the recruitment of new businesses that will generate and broaden employment opportunities, increase discretionary incomes and contribute to City General Fund Revenues; Policy 3 to encourage infill development that will increase the efficiencies of new utilities, infrastructure and public services; and Policy 9 which require development to be responsible for its fair share of on-site and off-site improvements. The Project will provide physical space for a large business or businesses to conduct warehouse uses in the City and spaces for up to six new retail and service uses to serve the immediate community and the City. These new businesses will provide a wide range of different job opportunities from warehouse jobs to office, retail and services jobs and thereby create the diverse job opportunities in the City that will provide opportunities for residents to find new jobs to increase their discretionary incomes.

Overall, through property tax, economic activity and job creation, the Project is anticipated to contribute to the City’s General Fund revenues in an amount of approximately $325,000 per year. The Project is an infill project using a long768 Resolution 2024-88

Page 11 of 23 ends

standing vacant site for land uses on lots configured and planned to be appropriately sited between other existing uses and already served by existing streets, utilities and infrastructure. Finally, the project includes design features to ensure all on-site amenities consistent with the City’s development standards are paid for by the applicant and that fair share contributions in the form of payment of the City’s applicable development impact fees are collected from the development.
(7) The Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 specifies Guiding Objectives for the development in the Specific Plan Area. Those Objectives are as follows: (1) Allow for a range of land uses that reflects current market conditions given the trend away from brick-and-mortar retail; (2) Respond to an increase in ecommerce, especially driven by the coronavirus pandemic; (3) Promote highquality development to safeguard the existing asset of Sun Lakes Country Club and other development in the vicinity; (4) Locate and design truck courts and semi-truck circulation to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and development; and (5) Expand access to restaurants, shopping, and services for the nearby Sun Lakes Country Club Community. The proposed Project accomplishes all these Objectives by reflecting current real estate market trends toward more e- commerce uses which necessarily includes warehouse uses as a key component of the supply chain required for the storage, shipping and availability of e-commerce goods. The lot configuration locates truck courts and semi-truck circulation towards the interior and northerly portion of the site next to the Southern Pacific Railroad line and Interstate 10 and away from the residential uses in the Sun Lakes Country Club.

The design elements and project conditions will ensure that the landscape features and design elements projects a high quality development to safeguard the quality of development within the Sun Lakes Country Club community. Finally, the Project will provide up to six sites and buildings for restaurants, shopping and services for the Sun Lakes Country Club Community within the Retail and Service District of the Project site that is located immediately north of Sun Lakes Boulevard and convenient to that Community.

C. The design and improvement of the subdivision proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(1) The Tentative Parcel Map covers an area of approximately 47.11 acres and proposes to divide that area into three parcels to be consistent with the proposed land uses to be allowed on each of those parcels. Based on the findings contained in the subsections below, the design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. The findings in the following subsections are intended to provide the analysis for approval of the Tentative Parcel Map under Government Code Section 66474 (b).
(2) The largest proposed parcel is 30.22 acres and is in the northwestern portion of the Map and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Interstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is proposed for a warehouse building of approximately 619,959 square feet along 769
Resolution 2024-88

Page 12 of 23 ends

with associated truck parking, loading, landscaping and other uses. The design of the subdivision to locate this large parcel closest to the Southern Pacific Railroad line and to Interstate 10 and then have this parcel improved with a warehouse and associated uses is consistent with the General Plan Policies 7 of the City’s Industrial Land Use Goal which provides that there shall be sufficient lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands. Creating a parcel of 30.22 acres sufficient to accommodate the proposed warehouse building while at the same time placing that parcel closest to commercial uses to the west, a railroad line and Interstate 10 to the north, a future office building to the east and a new grouping of commercial retail and service buildings to the south, allows for the warehousing proposed uses farthest away from residential uses to the south and complies with this Policy of carefully considering compatibility with adjacent land uses. In addition, designing this subdivision to accommodate a warehouse building is consistent with Policy 8 which provides that industrial lands shall be located on major roadways with good access to Interstate 10, to assure that potential traffic impacts associated with tractor- trailers are minimized. The design provides for access into and out of the site from Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and onto Interstate 10. (3) The second largest parcel is approximately 10.06 acres and is located on the eastern portion of the side and adjacent to an assisted living facility and residential units designed on smaller lots that are part of the Sun Lakes Country Club active adult/golf course community. On this lot, offices and professional uses are intended to be located but no development is currently proposed. This parcel is sufficient in size in terms of depth and width to accommodate a variety of building configurations that could be proposed on the site and meet all required development standards as set forth in Table 2 of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(4) The third and smallest parcel is approximately 6.83 acres and is located on the southern edge of the Map and adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard. On this lot, retail stores, restaurants and service uses are proposed as contemplated by the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Retail and Service District designation for the site. This lot design will provide for up to six separate retail and service uses to not only serve the needs of the residential neighborhood to the south, but also provide a buffer and screen between those residential uses and the warehouse building north of that parcel.
(5) The Tentative Parcel Map is designed to meet City standards which provide satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including emergency vehicle access. Specifically, Section 2.2.1.(Semi-Truck Access) of the Specific Plan identifies Sun Lakes Village Drive as an access point for semi-trucks to the Business & Warehouse District. Currently, the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center utilizes Sun Lakes Village Drive for truck deliveries in both eastbound and westbound directions. Project’s access points along Sun Lakes Boulevard have been evaluated and necessary driveway widening, adequate truck maneuvering, and signalized intersections have been provided as conditions of approval (See Street Improvement/Right of Way Conditions of approval, including Condition 27.) Additionally, the Project is located near Interstate 10 freeway which allows for ideal 770
Resolution 2024-88

Page 13 of 23 ends

access to industrial-type lands and helps minimize potential traffic impacts, which is consistent with General Plan Policy Nos. 8 for the Industrial Goal of the Community Development Element.

D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164.
(1) The Tentative Parcel Map covers an area of approximately 47.11 acres and proposes to divide that area into three parcels to be consistent with the proposed land uses to be allowed on each of those parcels. Based on the findings contained in the subsections below, the site contained within the boundaries of the Tentative Parcel Map is physically suitable for the type of development proposed pursuant to Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164. The findings in the following subsections are intended to provide the findings required by Government Code Section 66474(c). (2) The largest proposed parcel is 30.22 acres and is in the northwestern portion of the Map and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Interstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is approximately 1,316,349 square feet in size, exceeds the minimum parcel size of 10,000 square feet, has a lot depth of 876 feet that exceeds the minimum required depth of 100 feet, has a lot width of 1,270 feet which exceeds the minimum lot width of 70 feet, and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of a 619,959 square-foot warehouse building with associated truck access and parking areas, loading docks, employee parking and landscape areas. The proposed floor area ratio will be 47% of the site and less than the 55% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will be set back 10 feet from the north and west property lines of the site, consistent with required development standards, and allow for building setbacks to far exceed the required setbacks from the rear (185 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (70 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (185 feet when 20 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 402 parking spaces when 360-362 parking spaces are required by the Specific Plan and Banning Municipal Code Chapter 17.28.
(3) The second largest parcel is approximately 10.06 acres and is located on the eastern portion of the side and adjacent to an assisted living facility and residential units designed on smaller lots that are part of the Sun Lakes Country Club active adult/golf course community. On this lot, offices and professional uses are intended to be located but no development is currently proposed. This parcel is sufficient in size in terms of depth and width to accommodate a variety of building configurations that could be proposed on the site and meet all required development standards as set forth in Table 2 of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(4) The third and smallest parcel is approximately 6.83 acres and is located on the southern edge of the Map and adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard. On this lot, retail stores, restaurants and service uses are proposed. This parcel is approximately 297,492 square feet in size, exceeds the minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet, has a lot depth of 200 feet that exceeds the minimum required depth of 100 feet, has a lot width of 1,300 feet which exceeds the minimum lot width of 60 feet, and 771
Resolution 2024-88

Page 14 of 23 ends

is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of six commercial buildings ranging size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet for a total of 34,000 square feet, along with associated utility, parking roadway, and landscaping improvements. The proposed floor area ratio will be approximately 11% of the site and less than the 60% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will satisfy the 20 foot and 10-foot landscape setbacks from Sun Lakes Boulevard and the west project boundary, respectively, and allow for building setbacks to exceed the required setbacks from the rear (30 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (80 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (100 feet when 10 feet is required).

The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 289 parking spaces (16 for the drive-thru and 273 for the retail) when a total of 146 are required by the Specific Plan. (5) All three of the parcels are relatively flat and are designed to take vehicular access from access points along Sun Lakes Boulevard that are adequate in location, design and configuration for truck traffic into and out of the warehouse parcel, the office parcel and the retail and service use parcel. All three parcels are adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard to provide water, sewer and electricity to the site.

E. The site is physically suitable for the proposed-density of development under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164.
(1) As noted in the preceding section D above, the Tentative Parcel Map covers an area of approximately 47.11 acres and proposes to divide that area into three parcels to be consistent with the proposed land uses to be allowed on each of those parcels. Based on the findings contained in the subsections below, the site contained within the boundaries of the Tentative Parcel Map is physically suitable for the density of development proposed pursuant to Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164. The findings in the following subsections are intended to provide the findings required by Government Code Section 66474(d).
(2) The largest proposed parcel is 30.22 acres and is in the northwestern portion of the Map and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Interstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is approximately 1,316,349 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of a 619,959 square- foot warehouse building with associated truck access and parking areas, loading docks, employee parking and landscape areas. The proposed floor area ratio will be 47% of the site and less than the 55% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will include landscape setbacks 10 feet from the north and west property lines of the site, consistent with required development standards, and allow for building setbacks to far exceed the required setbacks from the rear (185 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (70 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (185 feet when 20 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 402 parking spaces when 360-362 parking spaces are required by the Specific Plan and Banning Municipal Code Chapter 17.28. By achieving or exceeding all development standards, the density of the proposed development is suitable for the proposed site.
(3) The second largest parcel is approximately 10.06 acres and is located on the eastern portion of the side and adjacent to an assisted living facility and residential 772
Resolution 2024-88

Page 15 of 23 ends

units designed on smaller lots that are part of the Sun Lakes Country Club active adult/golf course community. On this lot, offices and professional uses are intended to be located but no development is currently proposed. This parcel is sufficient in size in terms of depth and width to accommodate a variety of building configurations that could be developed up to the 60% floor area of the site allowed on the parcel and large enough so that it could meet all required development standards as set forth in Table 2 of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(4) The third and smallest parcel is approximately 6.83 acres and is located on the southern edge of the Map and adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard. On this parcel, retail stores, restaurants and service uses are proposed. This parcel is approximately 297,492 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of six commercial buildings ranging size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet for a total of 34,000 square feet, along with associated utility, parking roadway, and landscaping improvements. The proposed floor area ratio will be approximately 11% of the site and less than the 60% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will satisfy the 20 foot and 10- foot landscape setbacks from Sun Lakes Boulevard and the west project boundary, respectively, and allow for building setbacks to exceed the required setbacks from the rear (30 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (80 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (100 feet when 10 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 289 parking spaces (16 for the drive-thru and 273 for the retail) when a total of 146 are required by the Specific Plan.

F. The design of the subdivision and improvements proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (1) As previously discussed in the findings contained in Subsection B of this Section 3, Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is consistent with the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. That Specific Plan was analyzed in the previously certified EIR for the Sun Lakes North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. As previously discussed in Section 2 of this Resolution, which findings are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and as demonstrated by the Addendum referred to in that Section, the EIR disclosed and evaluated all potential environmental impacts related to the development of the Project site with the current land uses. The EIR found no significant and unavoidable impacts to any biological resources, and the Addendum found that no new or substantially greater impacts would occur pursuant to the Project. A condition of the Tentative Map approval imposes all mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that was adopted with the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. Based on the imposed mitigation measures, the environmental impacts arising from the design and improvement of the Tentative Parcel Map will be mitigated to a level less than significance to not cause substantial environmental damage within the meaning of subsection (e) of Government Code Section 66474 and Public Resources Code Section 21100.
(2) The site is currently vacant and does not contain any significant vegetation or habitat for wildlife. The site is not located within any Multiple Habitat Conservation 773
Resolution 2024-88

Page 16 of 23 ends

Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Cell or subunit which indicates that this site contains no endangered, threatened, or listed species of plant or animal, or its habitat, on the site. The site is not mapped within an area where additional surveys are required for any amphibian, mammal or other criteria species. There is no evidence that vernal pool complex, similar bodies of water, or conditions suitable for forming such bodies of water exist on the site. The site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Conservation Areas. The site is mapped within a Borrowing Owl required habitat and a pre-construction Burrowing Owl Survey and a Nesting Bird Survey are imposed as mitigation measures for this Project (BIO-1 and BIO-2). Finally, the site is mapped within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species required habitat suitability assessment survey area and an assessment was performed that determined that the site did not provide suitable habitat for the San Diego ambrosia, Brand’s phacelia and the San Miguel Savory. In addition, the site does not show any existing trees on site, but even it if did, BIO-3 would require replacement of such trees. Therefore, based on these findings and with the imposition of BIO-1 through BIO-3, potential impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to less than significance so as not to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat within the meaning of subsection (e) of Government Code Section 66474 and Public Resources Code Section 21100.

G. The design of the subdivision and improvements proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 are not likely to cause serious health problems. (1) Based on the warehouse building proposed to be developed on the site, and pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-7,a diesel health risk assessment was prepared which is attached to the Addendum document as Appendix B to that document.

That analysis evaluated the potential mobile source health risk impacts to receptors (residents or workers) associated with the development of the Project. Health risk exposures were modeled in accordance with the guidelines in the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. SCAQMD recommends using the Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) AERMOD model which has been employed accordingly. Risk calculations were conducted consistent with the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA)’s 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines. Detailed health risk modeling results are presented at Appendix B to this Memorandum. The analysis also evaluated potential health risk impacts that could result from exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM) generated by heavy-duty diesel trucks from on-site idling, on-site travel, and off-site travel. The modeled source area is shown in Exhibit D to the Appendix B of the Addendum Document. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the Project is estimated at 1.32 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk at any potentially affected receptors within the meaning of subsection (f) of Government Code Section 66474.
(2) As noted in prior subsections, the design of proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, the Sun Lakes North Specific 774
Resolution 2024-88

Page 17 of 23 ends

Plan Amendment No. 5 and the certified EIR. The Project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable Specific Plan requirements and requirements of the City’s ordinances, codes, and standards including, but not limited to, the California Uniform Building Code, the City’s Ordinances relating to Stormwater runoff management and controls. In addition, the design and construction of all improvements for the subdivision has been conditioned to be in conformance with adopted City street and public works standards. Based on the project design and its conformity to these standards, the design of the subdivision and its improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems within the meaning of subsection (f) of Government Code Section 66474.

H. The design of the subdivision and improvements proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

Other than easements for City of Banning water, sewer and electrical utilities, Southern California Edison, no easements of record or easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction for public access across the site have been disclosed in a search of the title records for the site and the City does not otherwise have any constructive or actual knowledge of any other such easements. Accordingly, the Parcel Map will not conflict with easements or access through the property within the meaning of subdivision (g) of Government Code Section 66474.

I. The design of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 does not propose any design features that would conflict with future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.

J. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in a violation of existing requirements imposed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The discharge of sewage from the site will occur through a sewer connection within Sun Lakes Boulevard and proceed through a series of sewer pipes to the City’s wastewater treatment plant in the southeast corner of the City. In connection with the approval of the Project, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary clearances and permits from the California Water Quality Control Board for the Colorado River Basin (Condition 20 (d)). With the design of the Project and Map and compliance with this condition, the discharge of waste into the City’s sewer system will not result in a violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements within the meaning of Government Code Section 66474.6.

SECTION 4: Design Review Approval Findings. Section 17.56.050 of the City of Banning Municipal Code requires that applications for Design Review approval satisfy certain specified findings and criteria. The City Council makes the following findings to approve Design Review 21-7008:

A. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 775
Resolution 2024-88

Page 18 of 23 ends

(1) The General Plan land use designations for the site are General Commercial and Business Park with a Specific Plan Overlay. The Specific Plan designations for the site are Business & Warehouse District and Retail and Service District. The Design Review application seeks approval of buildings and improvements for development of an industrial warehouse building of 619,959 square feet of gross floor area, which includes 10,000 square feet of office and a separate parcel containing six (6) retail buildings totaling 34,000 square feet to the south varying in size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet.
(2) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains goals, policies and programs for the development of industrial, commercial and residential uses.

With respect to the industrial uses, the General Plan specifies the general goal that “A balanced mix of non-polluting industrial land uses which provide local jobs for the City’s residents.” The project will provide a non-polluting industrial use and provide jobs for City residents. Specifically, the industrial portion of the project is not an industrial factory and the uses within the buildings and the warehouse operation are subject to several mitigation measures that require the use of electrical hookups at loading docks (AQ- 3), truck idling limitations (AQ-4), the use of electric or natural gas service equipment to reduce fuel consumption and emissions (AQ-5) and a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. In addition, other mitigation measures are imposed on the Project during the grading and construction of the site, including the use of low VOC paint (AQ-1) and limitations on grading activities to ensure emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. With these mitigation measures the project will not exceed local significance thresholds for emissions and ensure that the Project satisfies the non-polluting goal for industrial uses as provided in the General Plan. (3) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains several policies applicable to industrial development projects including: Policy 6 that provides that the land use map shall include sufficient industrial lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands; Policy 8 that provides that industrial lands shall be located on major roadways with good access to Interstate 10, to assure that potential traffic impacts associated with tractor-trailers are minimized; and Policy 10 that provides that the Zoning Ordinance shall include principles, design standards and guidelines which encourage development of high quality industrial projects.” The Project is consistent with Policy 6 because the size of the portion of the site designated for business and warehouse uses is relatively large (30.22 acres) and is appropriately located immediately adjacent to the I-10 freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the north of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse use is located on the portion of the site that will be screened and buffered from residential uses to the south and east by the retail and service buildings to be located in the Retail and Services District that exists between the residential uses in Sun Lakes to the south of Sun Lakes Boulevard and the industrial building and by the Office and Professional District uses in the future that will exist between the warehouse uses and the residential and assisted living uses to the east of the Project site. The Project is consistent with Policy 8 because it will be immediately adjacent to Interstate 10 on the north, and the lot configuration and access points into and out of the site are designed to provide for the minimum 776
Resolution 2024-88

Page 19 of 23 ends

amount of travel distance on Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and then onto Interstate 10 and eventually from Sun Lakes Boulevard to the Sunset Avenue and onto Interstate 10 when the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is completed. Finally, the Project, as more fully explained in connection the Project’s consistency with the Specific Plan includes a variety of design elements, setbacks, landscaping features that will provide a high quality industrial project. (4) The Economic Development Element of the General Plan provides the goal for a balanced, broadly based economy that provides a full range of economic and employment opportunities, while maintaining high standards of development and environmental protection. The Project will increase the availability of job opportunities for not only warehouse employees but also retail and service based business opportunities. The proposed development and buildings will improve the City’s property tax base, boost sales tax, provide jobs and revenue for the City’s economy. The Project is also consistent with the following applicable Economic Development Element Policies: Policy 2 for the City to take a proactive role in the recruitment of new businesses that will generate and broaden employment opportunities, increase discretionary incomes and contribute to City General Fund Revenues; Policy 3 to encourage infill development that will increase the efficiencies of new utilities, infrastructure and public services; and Policy 9 which require development to be responsible for its fair share of on-site and off- site improvements. The Project will provide physical space for a large business or businesses to conduct warehouse uses in the City and spaces for up to six new retail and service uses to serve the immediate community and the City. These new businesses will provide a wide range of different job opportunities from warehouse jobs to office, retail and services jobs and thereby create the diverse job opportunities in the City that will provide opportunities for residents to find new jobs to increase their discretionary incomes. Overall, through property tax, economic activity and job creation, these Project will contribute to General Fund revenues.

The Project is an infill project using a long- standing vacant site for land uses on lots configured and planned to be appropriately sited between other existing uses and already served by existing streets, utilities and infrastructure. Finally, the project includes design features to ensure all on-site amenities consistent with the City’s development standards are paid for by the applicant and that fair share contributions in the form of payment of the City’s applicable development impact fees are collected from the development.

B. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, including the development standards and guidelines for the district in which it is located. (1) The Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, which was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance as Section 17.96 by way of Ordinance No. 1591, provides the development standards and guidelines for the proposed Project site. The Specific Plan provides Guiding Objectives for the development in the Specific Plan Area. Those Objectives are as follows: (1) Allow for a range of land uses that reflects current market conditions given the trend away from brick-andmortar retail; (2) Respond to an increase in e-commerce, especially driven by the coronavirus pandemic; (3) Promote high quality development to safeguard the existing asset of Sun Lakes Country Club and other development in the vicinity; (4) 777
Resolution 2024-88

Page 20 of 23 ends

Locate and design truck courts and semi-truck circulation to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and development; and (5) Expand access to restaurants, shopping, and services for the nearby Sun Lakes Country Club Community. The proposed Project accomplishes all these Objectives by reflecting current real estate market trends toward more e- commerce uses which necessarily includes warehouse uses as a key component of the supply chain required for the storage, shipping and availability of e-commerce goods. The proposed Project locates truck courts and semi-truck circulation towards the interior and northerly portion of the site next to the Southern Pacific Railroad line and Interstate 10 and away from the residential uses in the Sun Lakes Country Club. The design elements and project conditions will ensure that the landscape features and design elements projects a high quality development to safeguard the quality of development within the Sun Lakes Country Club community. Finally, the Project will provide up to six sites and buildings for restaurants, shopping and services for the Sun Lakes Country Club Community within the Retail and Service District of the Project site that is located immediately north of Sun Lakes Boulevard and convenient to that Community.
(2) As proposed, the Project meets all required development standards as outline in Section 3.1 (Development Standards) of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SLVNSP). These include such requirements as setback, height, landscaping, parking, etc. Additionally, the Project meets those Design Guidelines outlined in Section 3.2 of the SLVNSP with regard to such elements as architectural articulation, blended use of building materials, and fenestration treatment.

Therefore, the Project meets the City’s Zoning Ordinance development standards and design guidelines, as more fully explained in the following subsections. (3) The warehouse building is proposed to be located on a 30.22- acre parcel located in the northwestern portion of the Project site and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Interstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is entirely within the Business and Warehouse District of the Specific Plan which allows for a variety of warehouse uses as permitted uses in that District. The parcel on which the warehouse building will be located is approximately 1,316,349 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of a 619,959 square- foot warehouse building with associated truck access and parking areas, loading docks, employee parking and landscape areas. The proposed floor area ratio will be 47% of the site and less than the 55% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will include landscape setbacks 10 feet from the north and west property lines of the site, consistent with required development standards, and allow for building setbacks to far exceed the required setbacks from the rear (185 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (70 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (185 feet when 20 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 402 parking spaces when 360-362 parking spaces are required by the Specific Plan and Banning Municipal Code Chapter 17.28. By achieving or exceeding all development standards, the proposed warehouse component of the Project satisfies the finding that the Project is consistent with the applicable development standards. (4) The retail and service buildings are proposed to be located on an approximate 6.83- acre parcel that is located on the southern edge of the Project Site and adjacent 778
Resolution 2024-88

Page 21 of 23 ends

to Sun Lakes Boulevard. This parcel is entirely within the Retail and Service District of the Specific Plan which allows for a variety of retail, restaurant and service uses as permitted uses in that District. On this parcel, retail stores, restaurants and services buildings are proposed. This parcel is approximately 297,492 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of six commercial buildings ranging size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet for a total of 34,000 square feet, along with associated utility, parking roadway, and landscaping improvements. The proposed floor area ratio will be approximately 11% of the site and less than the 60% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will satisfy the 20 foot and 10-foot landscape setbacks from Sun Lakes Boulevard and the west project boundary, respectively, and allow for building setbacks to exceed the required setbacks from the rear (30 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (80 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (100 feet when 10 feet is required). The proposed Project will provide for 289 parking spaces (16 for the drive-thru and 273 for the retail) when a total of 146 are required by the Specific Plan.

C. The design and layout of the proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not result in vehicular and/or pedestrian hazards.
(1) The design and layout of the proposed Project places the warehouse use on the largest of the three parcels (30.22 acres) and appropriately locates that parcel and warehouse building and associated uses immediately adjacent to the I-10 freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the north of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse use is located on the portion of the site that will be screened and buffered from residential uses to the south and east by the retail and service buildings to be located in the Retail and Services District that exists between the residential uses in Sun Lakes Golf Course Community that lies south of Sun Lakes Boulevard and the industrial building and by the Office and Professional District uses in the future that will exist between the warehouse uses and the residential and assisted living uses to the east of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse building will back up against the rear of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center buildings rather than facing those Shopping Center buildings. By this design of the location of the warehouse building, the Project is not anticipated to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring uses and future development. (2) The proposed Project locates truck courts and semi-truck circulation towards the interior and northerly portion of the site next to the Southern Pacific Railroad line and Interstate 10 and away from the residentialuses in the Sun Lakes CountryClub.

The lot configuration and access points into and out of the site are designed to provide for the minimum amount of travel distance on Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and then onto Interstate 10 and eventually from Sun Lakes Boulevard to the Sunset Avenue and onto Interstate 10 when the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is completed. Sun Lakes Boulevard is a Major Highway between Highland Springs Avenue to Highland Home Road with adequate capacity for truck and automobile traffic volumes for commercial and industrial purposes. Signalized intersections are proposed to be installed at Highland Springs/Sun Lakes Boulevard and at Sun Lakes Boulevard/Country Club 779
Resolution 2024-88

Page 22 of 23 ends

Drive to ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular crossing along Sun Lakes Boulevard. For these reasons, the development will not result in vehicular or pedestrian hazard.

D. The design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(1) As explained in Subsection (C) above, the warehouse building and associated uses will be surrounded by compatible uses. The entire northern boundary of the site on which the warehouse building will be located is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad line and then Interstate 10. Locating a warehouse building up against that rail line and freeway corridor is entirely appropriate and compatible with transportation uses that occur on that rail line and freeway corridor. To the west of the warehouse building is the backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center. This is commercial development project that will shield the warehouse building from persons coming to and from that Shopping Center. Locating the warehouse building behind a commercial shopping center building will not interfere with the use of that Shopping Center and is compatible with that use. To the south of the warehouse building is the Retail and Service District of the Specific Plan. On that site there will be shops, restaurants and services businesses along with a parking lot. Located the warehouse to the rear of and on the backside of these retail and service buildings will not interfere with those retail and service business and is compatible with those uses. Finally, most of the easterly side the warehouse parcel will be adjacent to a currently vacant parcel that is proposed for office and professional uses. That future office and professional development on that easterly parcel will provide substantial screening and buffering of the residential and assisted living uses to the east of the warehouse building. In addition, a landscape buffer along the entire easterly edge of the Project site will further screen the warehouse use from those other easterly uses. Finally, the placement of the warehouse building and associated uses on this site will mean that the warehouse building and truck uses on that site will be more than 800 feet from the northern boundary of the Sun Lakes Country Club residential community. For all these reasons, the design of the project to place and develop a warehouse building and use on the rear of the Project site and as buffered by the other buildings and uses surrounding that site, provides that it will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(2) As noted in part (1) of this Subsection (D) above, the proposed retail, restaurant and service buildings to be located on the southerly parcel of the proposed development will be situated between Sun Lakes Boulevard on the south and the industrial warehouse building on the north. In addition, to the proposed landscaping along the frontage of Sun Lakes Boulevard, these retail, restaurant and service buildings and uses will function as a visual and physical buffer from the Sun Lakes Country Club residents on the south side of Sun Lakes Boulevard, the closest of which is approximately 800 feet away from the proposed industrial building. These proposed retail, restaurant and services uses in proximity of existing adjacent residential uses will also be similar to the uses in the existing commercial/retail uses in the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center. These buildings and uses will provide needed retail, restaurant and service uses for the residents of the Sun 780
Resolution 2024-88

Page 23 of 23 ends

Lakes Country Club community. For these reasons, the Project’s proposed uses on the Retail and Service District parcel will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

SECTION 5: Project Approval and Denial of Appeal. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4 above, and all of the evidence (both written and oral) in the record, this Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164; denies the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review No. 21-7008, thereby upholding approval of Design Review No. 21-7008; and imposes all of the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A to this Resolution, which are hereby incorporated.

SECTION 6: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 7: Effect. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 8: Judicial Review. The time within which judicial review, if available, of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. The City Clerk shall mail by first class mail, postage prepaid, a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing to the Appellant, Applicant, and any other persons or entities requesting notice of determinations related to the decision.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

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

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
781
Resolution 2024-88

Page 24 of 23 ends

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-88, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 11th day of June 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
782
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 City of Banning
Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval
PROJECT: Design Review No. 21-7008 & Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 (TPM 21-4001) SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval (City Council Resolution 2024-88) APPLICANT: Pamela Steele, MIG, Inc.

LOCATION: North of Sun Lakes Boulevard, east of Highland Springs Avenue, south of Interstate 10, and west of Highland Home Road in the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (APN 540- 180-055)

EXHIBIT A
To City Council Resolution 2024-88
* All fair share agreements, covenant agreements and agreements subject to recordation will be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and will include appropriate enforcement provisions by the City and be properly securitized.

Community Development Department
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

1. The project shall always comply with all federal, state, County and City laws, codes, regulations, and standards, including those that relate to hazardous materials.

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

3. Approval of this entitlement shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC), other applicable City ordinances, in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
783
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

4. The Project permitted under Design Review 21-7008 & Tentative Parcel Map 21-4001 shall commence construction within two (2) years from the date of this approval, or the Design Review shall become null and void. Additionally, if after commencement of construction, activities are discontinued for a period of one (1) year, the Design Review approval shall become null and void. The Community Development Director may, upon a written application being filed 30 days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a onetime extension not to exceed 12 months. Upon granting of an extension, the Community Development Director shall ensure that the Design Review complies with all current provisions of Title 17 of the Banning Municipal Code.

5. A copy of the signed Resolution of approval and all Conditions of Approval imposed on the Design Review shall be reproduced in legible form on the improvement plans submitted for review and approval as required by the reviewing department.

6. Prior to any occupancy/use of the project site, or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

7. A trash enclosure shall be provided with three decorative walls, enhanced wall caps, a pedestrian entrance, a gate, and a structural steel cover, in a style compatible with the structure’s architecture. The gate shall be maintained in working order and shall remain closed except when in use.

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

9. Any roof-mounted equipment or utility equipment on the side of the structure, or on the ground, shall not be visible from adjacent properties, the public right-of-way, or the parking lot. Any architectural screening that is proposed to shield the roof-mounted equipment shall be compatible in terms of colors and materials of the building. Landscape screening for ground mounted equipment shall be of sufficient size and quantity to fully screen the equipment.

10.Storage use and removal of toxic substances, solid waste, and flammable liquids shall conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All required licensing shall always be maintained in good order. Lapse or revocation of any required license shall result in the voiding of the Business License.

11.a. Prior to the issuance of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the warehouse building the developer shall install all landscaping specified for the retail service district pursuant to city approved landscape plans.

11. b. A complete landscape/irrigation package prepared by a landscape architect licensed by the State of California shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permit. The plans shall include the following elements:

A. Water conservation concept statement.

B. Calculation of maximum applied water allowance.

C. Calculation of estimated total water use.

D. Landscape design plan.
784
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 E. Irrigation design plan.

F. Certificate of substantial completion.

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

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

13.If human remains are encountered during grading and other construction excavation, the developer/owner shall stop/cease work in the immediate vicinity and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

14.Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only.

15.All graffiti shall be removed immediately or within 24 hours of notice from the City.

16.Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m.

17.Commercial zoning districts shall be permitted wall signs per the area of the wall (length times height of the wall). The area devoted to such signs shall not exceed twenty percent of the wall area. All parts, portions, and materials shall be maintained and kept in good repair. The display surface of all signs shall be kept clean, neatly painted, and free from rust and corrosion. Any cracked, broken surfaces, malfunctioning lights, missing sign copy or other unmaintained or damaged portion of a sign shall be repaired or replaced within thirty calendar days following notification by the City.

18.Pedestrian walkways should not intersect the drive-through aisles, but where they do, they shall have clear visibility, and they must be emphasized by enriched paving or striping.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:

19.A Public Works Permit shall be required prior to commencement of any work within the public right-of-way. The contractor working within the public right-of-way shall submit proof of a Class “A” State Contractor’s License, City of Banning Business License, and Liability Insurance. Any existing public improvements, or public improvements not accepted by the City that are damaged during construction shall be removed and replaced as determined by the City Engineer or his/her representative
.

20.Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or public works permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies:

A. Fire Marshal (access)
B. Public Works Department (grading permits, street improvement permits)
C. Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (storm drain)
D. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin (RWQCB)
785
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 E. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

21.The applicant is responsible for meeting all requirements of permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting improvements plans to the City.

22.The following improvement plans shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer licensed by the State of California and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A separate set of plans shall be prepared for each line item listed below. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City Engineer, the plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified and shall be drawn on 24” x 36” Mylar film. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired (Note: the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors):
a. Rough Grading Plans 1" = 40' horizontal
A. (All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced
B. on last sheet of set)
b. Haul Route Plans 1" = 40' horizontal
c. Clearing Plans 1" = 50' horizontal
A. (Include construction fencing plan)
d. Erosion Control & SWPPP, WQMP 1” = 40’ Horizontal
A. (Note: a, b, c & d shall be reviewed
B. and approved concurrently)
e. Storm Drain Plans 1” = 40’ Horizontal
f. Street Improvement Plans 1" = 40' Horizontal
i.1" = 4' Vertical
g. Precise Grading Plans 1" = 40' Horizontal
h. Landscaping Plans 1” = 20 Horizontal
i. Water Improvement Plans 1” = 40’ Horizontal
i.1” = 4’ Vertical
j. Sewer Improvement Plans 1” = 40’ Horizontal
i.1” = 4’ Vertical

23.Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed herein shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation.

24.All off-site plan and profile, street improvement plans, and signing & striping plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or at a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.

25.A small index map shall be included on the title sheet of each set of plans, showing the overall view of the entire work area.

26.Upon completion of construction, the Developer shall furnish the City with reproducible record 786
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 drawings on Mylar film of all improvement plans that were approved by the City Engineer.

Each sheet shall be clearly marked "As-Built" or "As-Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying the accuracy and completeness of the drawings.

The applicant shall have all AutoCAD files submitted to the City, revised to reflect the “AsBuilt” conditions.

Street Improvements/Right-of-Way
Construct right-of-way improvements (driveway approach, sidewalk, parkway, raised median, access ramp, street lighting, etc.) fronting the site per City of Banning Standard Drawings.

Street lights shall be installed offset of the existing street lights.

27.Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Sun Lakes Boulevard, future Driveway 3 (as shown in the TIA) and Country Club Drive. Project applicant shall reach out to the Sun Lakes Country Club staff to discuss impacts to their access.

28.Provide paved golf cart access adjacent to the sidewalk through the property and at the proposed traffic signal entrance.

29.Construct street improvements as identified by the project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA).

30.The City and Developer are to enter into a Public Improvement Agreement to guarantee the construction of the public improvements as listed in the Conditions of Approval and as shown on the approved plans. The applicant shall work with the City Attorney’s Office to execute the Agreement and pay all related legal processing fees.

31.All street improvement designs shall provide pavement and lane transitions per City of Banning and Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.

32.Any public improvements damaged during the course of construction shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or his/her designee.

33.The applicant shall plant and perpetually maintain trees, shrubs, and ground cover placed in the parkway, slopes adjacent to public right-of-ways constructed in connection with the project. This includes providing irrigation and the clearing of debris and weed removal. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement for the perpetual maintenance of landscaping within the public right-of-way fronting the project site.

34.All required public improvements for the project shall be completed, tested, and approved by the Engineering Division prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.

GRADING & DRAINAGE:

35.Submit a Drainage Study with hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for developed and undeveloped (existing) conditions to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The study and analysis shall be prepared by a civil engineer licensed by the State of California.

Drainage design shall be in accordance with Banning Master Drainage Plan adopted by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCD), RCFCD Hydrology Manual, and standard plans and specifications. The 10-year storm flow shall be contained within the street curbs, and the 100- year storm shall be contained within the street right-of787 99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 way; when this criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed.

36.At a minimum, all development will make provisions to store runoff from rainfall events up to and including the one-hundred three-hour during event. Post-development peak urban runoff discharge rates shall not exceed pre-development peak urban runoff discharge rates.

37.Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall install trash filters in all catch basins adjacent to the site and/or will be constructed as part of the storm drain improvements for this development. The trash filters shall comply with the requirements of the Trash Amendment as amended and approved in accordance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region Order No. R7-2013-0011.

38.If the site is located in a Flood Area as identified in Flood Insurance Rate Map dated August 28, 2008 the developer is responsible for providing a certification by a registered professional engineer or architect demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.

39.The project grading shall be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage areas, outlet points and outlet conditions.

Otherwise, a drainage easement shall be obtained for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. The project shall accept and convey storm flows from the adjacent property to the north.

40.The applicant shall comply with Chapter 13.24 “Stormwater Management Systems” of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC) and Title 18 “Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control” of the California Building Code related to excavation and grading; and, the State Water Resources Control Board’s orders, rules and regulations.

41.For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the applicant shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

42.The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City.

43.The applicant’s SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices (“BMPs”):

44.Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).

45.Temporary Sediment Control.

46.Wind Erosion Control.

47.Tracking Control.

48.Non-Storm Water Management.
788
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

49.Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.

50.All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be designed using the CASQA BMP handbook and approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project.

51.The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City.

52.Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region Order No. R7-2013-0011.

53.Prior to the issuance of any building permit(s), a precise grading plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any grading activity.

54.Grading and excavations in the public right-of-way shall be supplemented with a soils and geology report prepared by a professional engineer or geologist licensed by the State of California.

55.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified civil engineer or land surveyor. Pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil.

TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION:

56.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval in writing from the Fire Marshall for the plans for all public or private access drives or streets. The plans shall include plan and sectional views and indicate the grade and width of the access road measured flow-line to flow-line. When a dead-end access exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required, a clearly marked fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided and approved by the Fire Marshall. Applicable covenant, conditions or restrictions or other approved documents shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions such as speed bumps/humps,control gates or other modifications within said easement or access road unless prior approval of the Fire Marshall is granted.

57.Driveway grades shall not exceed eight percent unless approved by the City Engineer.

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

59.Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the hydrant location on the street/access driveway as approved by the Fire Marshall and must be maintained in good condition by the property owner until the street is accepted for maintenance.
789
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

60.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis and submit the report to the Engineering Division for review and approval. All mitigation identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis shall be implemented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

TRASH & RECYCLING:

61.Construction debris shall be disposed of at a certified recycling site. It is the responsibility of the developer to contact the City’s franchised solid waste hauler, Waste Management of the Inland Valley, at 1-800-423-9986 for disposal of construction debris.

62.The developer shall participate in the City’s recycling and diversion programs by providing a solid waste enclosure to accommodate necessary solid waste containers.

63.All new development projects including, but not limited to, industrial and business buildings and facilities, as well as, multi-family complexes shall provide a solid waste enclosure to accommodate trash, recycle and organics waste bins and/or containers. Solid waste enclosures for multiple tenant properties, such as a shopping center, must design the enclosure to accommodate all waste containers of the property.

64.Solid waste enclosures shall be located on the site to be serviced.

65.The enclosure shall be designed for the exclusive use of housing solid waste containers including trash, recyclable and organics materials.

66.Enclosures Design Criteria:
a. The size and dimensions of the trash enclosure shall be based on the required number and size of containers at a minimum accommodating one (1) container each for trash, recyclables and organics materials.
b. Enclosure shall be architecturally compatible with the primary building on site to provide a coordinated design.
c. Exterior materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the building walls. d. Chain link fencing with or without/plastic slats is prohibited. e. Enclosure shall have solid metal or wood gates with latches that can be secured in an open or closed position.
f. Enclosures shall be constructed in a permanent manner. g. Exterior must be fully enclosed with solid roofing to prevent rainfall from entering the enclosure and to prevent wind dispersal, as well as, offsite transport of trash and recycling.
h. Provide the minimum clearance for collector and user accessibility. i. City Engineer approval shall be obtained in writing prior to the construction of any solid waste enclosure.

WATER:

67.Submit water improvement plans to the Public Works Department along with anticipated peak water demands and hydraulic analysis to justify pipe sizes. Pipes shall be ductile iron, wrapped in V-Bio polyethylene. All water services 2” and smaller shall use plastic-coated copper tubing.
790
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

68.Separate irrigation meters will be required for outdoor use.

69.All commercial, industrial, and irrigation water services shall have Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Preventors. RP Backflow Preventors shall be of a model approved by USC.

70.On-site fire hydrants shall be part of a privately-owned and maintained fire protection system. Private fire hydrants shall be painted safety red, to differentiate from publicly-owned fire hydrants which are typically yellow.

71.Because of the project’s location at a pressure zone boundary, an above-ground pressure regulating station may be required, pending review of the water improvement plans by the City Engineer.

RECYCLED WATER:

72.Plans for a purple-pipe non-potable irrigation system shall be designed and submitted to the Public Works Department. Pipes shall be ductile iron, wrapped in purple V-Bio polyethylene.

All water services 2” and smaller shall use plastic-coated copper tubing. Plans should include a signage plan typical of a non-potable irrigation system.

73.An interim connection between the potable and non-potable systems shall be installed by way of a single backflow preventor, until such a time as the City’s non-potable backbone system is extended west along Sun Lakes Blvd.

WASTEWATER:

74.A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department, extending the public sewer from Sun Lakes Blvd. Sewer main material shall be PVC SDR 26.

Sewer system design shall avoid placing manholes in low spots, or connecting storm water drainage facilities to the sewer system.

75.When available, estimated sewer discharge quantities and quality shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. Depending on the nature of the discharge, grease interceptor(s) may be required.

FEES:

76.Plan check fees for professional report review (geotechnical, drainage, WQMP, etc.), and all improvement plans review, shall be paid at the time of submittal of said documents for review and approval in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of submittal.

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

78.A plan storage fee shall be paid for any engineering plans that may be required prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time the fee is paid.

79.Water, Sewer, and Non-potable impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of Building permit. 791
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 Water meter and water meter installation fees shall be due prior to meter release.

FINAL PARCEL MAP:

80.Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall construct on-site and off-site improvements required for the development of the property in accordance with the approved plans and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement on terms agreed to by the Parties guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof. For off- site improvements, the procedures and requirements of Government Code Section 66462.5 shall apply, including the potential acquisition of those rights by the City or waiver of the City’s requirement to obtain those rights.

81.Security for the construction of public improvements in accordance with Government Code Section 66499 shall be as follows:
a. Faithful Performance Bond 100% of estimated cost
b. Labor and Material Bond 100% of estimated cost
c. Monumentation Bond $5,000.00

82.Securities for the public improvements shall be on file with the City Clerk prior to scheduling the final map for approval by City Council. Unit prices for bonding estimates shall be those specified or approved by the City Engineer.

83.Revisions to the tentative map during plan check including, but not limited to, lot line alignments, easements, improvement plan revisions, and similar minor changes that are in substantial compliance with the tentative map, or associated conditions of approval, shall be administratively approved through the plan check process with the mutual consent and approval of the Developer, the Community Development Director and City Engineer. Final maps shall be amended in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

84.Prior to approval of any final map the applicant shall identify and include in its improvement plans those routine structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMP’s).

85.Submit a copy of the title report, closure calculations, and any separate instruments or necessary right-of-way documents to the Engineering Division prior to final map approval.

86.An original Mylar of the final map (after recordation) shall be provided to the City for the record files.

87.Public improvements shall be completed and accepted by City of Banning prior to release of Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Material Bond for such improvements. Faithful Performance Bond for applicable public improvements shall be reduced to 10% once City accepts improvements into maintenance period. Final 10% to serve as the maintenance bond for the 1- year maintenance period.

88.A record of all street centerline monument ties shall be submitted to the Engineering Division upon completion of improvements or prior to release of Monumentation Bond.

FIRE DEPARTMENT:
792
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

89.Fire Hydrants and Fire Flow: Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans for the water system shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval. The water system shall be capable of delivering the required fire flow. Fire hydrant(s) location and spacing shall comply with the fire code. An approved water supply for fire protection during construction shall be made available prior to the arrival of combustible materials on site. Reference 2016 California Fire Code (CFC) 507.5.1, 3312, Appendices B and C.

90.Fire Department Access: Prior to building permit issuance, provide a site plan showing the fire lanes. Access roads shall be provided to within 150 feet to all portions of the exterior building walls and shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. The construction of the access roads shall be all weather and capable of sustaining 40,000 lbs. over two axles for areas of residential development and 60,000 lbs. over two axels for commercial developments.

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

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

92.Grading Permit Fire Department Review: Submittal to the Office of the Fire Marshal for Precise Grading Permit will be required.

93.Construction Permits Fire Department Review: Submittal of construction plans to the Office of the Fire Marshal for development, construction, installation and operational use permitting will be required. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Office of the Fire Marshal reviews these plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code, and related codes, which are in effect at the time of building plan submittal.

94.Phased Construction Access: If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access for fire protection prior to any construction. Ref. CFC 503.1

95.Fire Sprinkler System: All new commercial structures 3,600 square feet or larger shall be protected with a fire sprinkler system. Ref CFC 903.2 as amended by the City of Banning.

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

97.Knox Box and Gate Access: Buildings shall be provided with a Knox Box. The Knox Box shall be installed in an accessible location approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. All electronically operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic sensors for access. Ref. CFC 506.1

98.Addressing: All commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side and additional locations as required. Ref. CFC 505.1 and County of Riverside Office of the Fire Marshal Standard #07-01

99.Buildings in excess of 300,000 square feet in area shall be required to provide a fire command center for fire department operations and shall comply with 2019 CFC sections 508.1.1 through 508.1.8 as amended and adopted by the City of Banning and Riverside County Fire. (2019 CFC 508.1)
793
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 100.Emergency Responder Radio Coverage Systems: Projects that do not meet the exceptions set forth by the Riverside County Office of the Fire Marshal shall provide plans for an emergency responder radio coverage system. Ref. CFC 510.1 and Riverside County Office of the Fire Marshal Technical Policy #TP19-002
101.Strategic Planning Review: This planning case will also be reviewed by Riverside County Fire Department Strategic Planning for the cumulative impact on the Fire Department’s ability to provide an acceptable level of service. Additional requirements may be conditioned by Strategic Planning to mitigate these impacts. Questions for Strategic Planning can be addressed to [email protected].
102. Use the Above Statement only if it meets the Strategic Planning Case Review Criteria below:
a. Environmental Impact Reports
b. General Plan Amendments
c. Specific Plans
d. Developments that are in very high fire hazard severity zones in the LRA and developments in the SRA
e. Residential with 500 or more dwelling units
f. Commercial/Industrial developments of 1,000,000 sq ft or more 103. The developer shall pay for and install traffic signal preemption devices on up to 5 traffic signal intersections from and including Ramsey/Highland Springs to Sun Lakes Boulevard/Highland Springs, not to exceed the cost of $100,000. The applicant shall coordinate these efforts with both the City of Banning and Beaumont. 104. The applicant shall contribute an amount equal to the Development Impact Fee (DIF) payment for the development, $175,000, to go toward a fire apparatus for a future fire station in the area.
***END***
794

December 7, 2021
Via Electronic Mail Only
Adam B. Rush, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Banning
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Re: Planning Commission Approval of Design Review 21-7008 and Tentative Parcel Map 31864
Dear Mr. Rush:

We represent the Pass Area Action Group, an association of local community members opposed to the approval of Design Review 21-7008 and Tentative Parcel Map 31684 (together, the “Project”). Many members reside in the over-55 communities adjacent to the Project site, and many have increased sensitivity to the severe air pollution associated with large-scale refrigerated warehouse projects. Our clients are seriously concerned about the City of Banning’s (“City”) rushed, inadequate approval process, and its lack of transparency. We respectfully request the City Council defer any hearing or decision on the Project to allow the public more time to effectively provide their input on the Project.

On December 8, 2020, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (“the 2020 Program EIR”) for amendments to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan and the Banning Zoning Ordinance to allow for warehouse, retail, and office land uses on a single parcel.1 At this time, no specific development project had been proposed.

Subsequently, the Project was proposed, requiring City approval of applications for design review and a tentative parcel map. On December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 21-7008 and recommended approval of Tentative 1 City of Banning, Resolution 2020-141, at 1 (Dec. 8, 2020). 795
Adam B. Rush, AICP
December 7, 2021

Page 2 ends

Parcel Map 31864.2 The City then filed a Notice of Determination (“NOD”) indicating there was no need to prepare a new or supplemental EIR for the specific Project, because the 2020 EIR adequately analyzed the Project’s impacts.3 The City’s sole reliance on the 2020 Program EIR contradicts the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Program EIRs may be prepared for a “series of actions,” or a “large-scale planning approval.” CEQA Guidelines §§ 15168 15152.

CEQA authorizes “tiering,” allowing agencies to refrain from doing an EIR for a project if a previous Program EIR adequately analyzed the project’s impacts. Guidelines § 15152(a). This type of “tiering” is generally only appropriate when the Program EIR is a prepared for a “general plan, policy, or program,” and the subsequent project is “sitespecific.” Guidelines § 15152(b).

The 2020 Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments were not appropriate subjects for a Program EIR. They effected only development of a single site, and thus were not a “large-scale planning approval.” Since it was prepared before the Project was proposed, it is also lacking in crucial details that only became available after the Project proposal. The Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in connection with 2020 Program EIR suffers the same flaw.

Despite this lack of project-specific analysis, the City proposes to approve the Project without preparing a subsequent EIR. The 2020 Program EIR, however, was prepared without information about the type and operations of warehouse that would eventually be developed. The City now knows that the Project includes a large-scale, refrigerated warehouse. Careful analysis would probably show that this aspect of the Project, which was “not known and could not have been known” when the 2020 Program EIR was certified, will lead to air quality and greenhouse gas impacts more severe than that EIR indicates; a subsequent EIR is therefore required. Guidelines § 15162. If the City has performed the required analyses, it has not shared them with the public or met any of CEQA’s procedural requirements.

The City’s premature filing of the NOD also violates CEQA. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency is required to file an NOD “after deciding to . . . approve a project.” Guidelines § 15094. Tentative Parcel Map 31864, however, has never been approved. Under the City Municipal Code, the City Council is responsible for approving tentative parcel map applications. Banning Municipal Code § 16.14.050(A).

While the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Map, the City 2 City of Banning, Planning Commission Report, at 8-9 (Dec. 1, 2021). 3 City of Banning, Notice of Determination (Dec. 1, 2021). 796
Adam B. Rush, AICP
December 7, 2021

Page 3 ends

Council has not approved it. Therefore, the NOD was premature, and should be withdrawn. (This additionally means that no appeal is required to bring the Tentative Map to the City Council; that hearing must be held for Project approval, regardless of any appeals.)
The rushed, procedurally-deficient nature of the City’s CEQA process greatly worries our clients, who will be significantly harmed if the City continues to expedite approval of the Project. ensure that our client has a complete picture of the proposal and its environmental impacts, we will soon be submitting (1) a Public Records Act request seeking relevant analytical documents, and (2) an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review 21-7008 (again, no appeal of the Tentative Map recommendation is required). The City should not make any decision on this project until the City has provided the requested documents and our client and other community members have had time to properly respond to this neighborhood-altering project.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Gabriel M.B. Ross
GMBR:OGB
1446165.3
797
Planning Commission Agenda December 1, 2021 i
AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BANNING PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
Wednesday, December 1, 2021 @ 6:30 PM
City Council Chambers, 99 E. Ramsey Street
And via Video/Teleconference
To observe and participate in the on-line video portion of the meeting through your personal computer or device enter the following or click on the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82794878682?pwd=SFUrMGNKQVlQRHMxaTFHMnJIYk92QT09 Meeting ID: 827 9487 8682
Password: 894694
One tap mobile: +16699009128,82794878682#
Dial in: +1 669 900 9128 US
Meeting ID: 827 9487 8682
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kfO5uo7yb To observe the live meeting through your personal computer, but not participate with video or oral comments, you may use your computer or smart phone to enter the following or click on the link: https://banninglive.viebit.com or on the Banning Government Channel on Cable Television You may also email comments to: [email protected] 798
Planning Commission Agenda December 1, 2021 ii
I. CALL TO ORDER OF A REGULAR MEETING: Chairman Shaw
 Pledge of Allegiance: Vice-Chair Brosious
 Roll Call: Commissioners Brosious, Krick, Lopez, Santana, Chairman Shaw II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: - On Items Not on the Agenda
A three-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public who wishes to address the Chairman and Commissioners for items not on the agenda. No member of the public shall be permitted to “share” his/her three minutes with any other member of the public. (Items received under this heading may be referred to staff or future study, research, completion and/or future Commissioner Action.) PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

III. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS:

Note: All items listed on the Consent Calendar may be enacted by a single motion without separate discussion. If a discussion or a separate vote on any item is desired by a Planning Commissioner, that item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. All remaining items not removed from the Consent Calendar by a Planning Commissioner shall be voted on prior to discussion of the item(s) requested to be pulled.

Minutes – November 3, 2021, Regular Meeting………….……………....…….…. Page 1 IV. PUBLIC HEARING:

1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-8018 (CUP 21-8018) TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL TO ALLOW A TATTOO STUDIO LOCATED AT 191 NORTH SAN GORONIO AVENUE WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (APN:540 164-006).

Staff Report – Adam Rush……...…………...………….….........................................Page 4 Order of Procedure:

1. Staff report presentation

2. Applicant Presentation

3. Planning Commission questions for staff and applicant

4. Open public comments

5. Close public comments

6. Planning Commission discussion

7. Motion and Second

8. Planning commission discussion on motion

9. Call the question
799
Planning Commission Agenda December 1, 2021 iii
Recommendation:

That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2021-19:

I. Make a determination under CEQA Guidelines that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities); and
II. Approve Conditional Use Permit 21-8018 for a Tattoo Studio in the Downtown Commercial zoning district in the City of Banning.

2. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164, A PROPOSED MIXED-USE INUSTRIAL/RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 47-ACRES PACEL THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AS AMENDED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SHELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MEASURING 619,969 SQUARE FEET, WHICH INCLUDES 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT PROPOSES SIX (6) RETAILER/RESTAURANT BUILDINGS TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET. THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WILL SUBDIVIDE THE 47-ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE (3) LOTS, FOR FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES. (APN: 419-140-057).

Staff Report – Lisa Edwards……….…..………….….................................................Page 8 Order of Procedure:

1. Staff report presentation

2. Applicant Presentation

3. Planning Commission questions for staff

4. Open public comments

5. Close public comments

6. Planning Commission discussion

7. Motion and Second

8. Planning commission discussion on motion

9. Call the question (Roll call vote)
Recommendation:

That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2021-16, recommending the City Council:

I. Make the determination that the Project, and the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, do not involve substantial changes which will result in new significant environmental effects, and the Project does not involve new information of substantial importance which shows that the Project will have significant effects not discussed in the prior FEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the “Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5” project and the Project are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the MMRP. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations), a Notice 800
Planning Commission Agenda December 1, 2021 iv
of Determination (NOD) has a been prepared for the Commission to consider in conjunction with the Project.

II. Approve Design Review 21-7008 and Tentative Parcel Map 38164 for a proposed Industrial Warehouse building which includes office space and six retail/restaurant buildings. The Tentative Parcel Map will subdivide a 47-acre parcel into three (3) lots, for financing and conveyance purposes in the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area.

V. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:

VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS:

VII. ADJOURNMENT:

The City of Banning Planning Commission is hereby adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2021, starting at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division (951) 922- 3125 or email the Planning Commission Recording Secretary at [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR

35.102-35.104 ADA Title II].
801
1 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
99 E Ramsey Street, Banning, CA
Wednesday, November 3, 2021 - 6:30 PM

ACTION MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER at 6:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Vice Chairman Brosious, Commissioner Krick, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Santana.

Absent: Chairman Shaw.

II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
Public comments opened.

I. Schuler, resident of Banning, wished to alert the Commission, and the residents, about an upcoming project that submitted an application for an approval of ten warehouses; it will be between Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sunset Ave. She said this project will bring additional truck traffic that is not needed.

J. Hagen, resident of Banning, spoke about a recent explosion (resulting in fire) at a cannabis growth facility in Orange County, that resulted in fatalities. He asked the Commission for support to make a motion to City Council to re-establish the set-back limitation of cannabis establishments back the original approval of 600’ from residential zones.

L. Hagen, resident of Banning, asked about a property that recently sold and was wondering if this property will be a future cannabis growth facility. She asked if the City is going to have inspectors that will be checking facilities for violations.

Public comments closed.

III. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Santana)
1 802
2 Motion Carried 4-0-1, Chairman Shaw absent. Roll call vote.

To approve: Minutes – October 19, 2021, Adjourned Meeting.

IV. PUBLIC HEARING: opened at 6:35 p.m.

1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 21-97503 TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL TO AMEND CHAPTERS 5.33, 17.12, AND 17.54 OF

THE BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE THE LIMITATION ON THE

NUMBER OF CANNABIS RETAILERS PERMITTED IN THE CITY, TO

AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF CANNABIS RETAILERS IN THE GENERAL

COMMERCIAL ZONE AND AUTHORIZE CANNABIS DISTRIBUTORS AND

MANUFACTURERS IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE, AND MAKING

ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS PERTAINING

TO CANNABIS RETAILERS PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL CANNABIS

BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners had questions for staff.

Public comments opened.

L. Hagen, resident of Banning, said she doesn’t understand why we need to saturate our city with so many cannabis cultivation facilities and would prefer an effort be given to other type of business that can come to town.

J. Hagen, resident of Banning, asked the Commission not to approve this proposal.

He said staff is blinded with imaginary dollar signs and continue to fall into same pitfalls and rework ordinances to eliminate restrictions, remove setbacks and now want to remove the cap.

Public comments were closed by the Vice-Chair.

Discussion was made among staff and the Commission regarding the proposed Zone Text Amendment.

Commissioner Krick made a motion to approve the cap on the number of cannabis retailers permitted within the Highway Serving Commercial (HSC) zone only.

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3), AND APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 21-97503, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF

THE BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE THE NUMERIC CAP ON THE

NUMBER OF CANNABIS RETAILERS PERMITTED WITHIN THE HIGHWAY

SERVING COMMERCIAL (HCS) ZONE OF THE CITY, ALLOW FOR THE

OPERATION OF CANNABIS RETAILERS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL

ZONE, ALLOW CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION AND MANUFACTURING IN THE

BUSINESS PARK ZONE, AND MAKE ADDITIONAL CONFORMING

AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO CANNABIS RETAILERS ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Brosious)
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2021-18:
2 803
3 I. Make a determination under CEQA Guidelines that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060 (b)(3), because the proposed Amendment is not a project as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; and II. Approve Zone Text Amendment 21-97503, amending Title 17 of the Banning Municipal Code to eliminate the numeric cap on the number of cannabis retailers permitted within the Highway Serving Commercial (HSC) Zone of the City.
(Motion Carried 5-0) Roll call vote.

V. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Santana asked where the traffic reports can be found for certain projects.

VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Director Rush gave an update regarding the Banning Point project.

VII. ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment of the Planning Commission of the November 3, 2021, Meeting at 8:30 p.m.

The next regular meeting of the Banning Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, December 1, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

Minutes prepared by:

Sandra B. Calderon
__________________
Sandra B. Calderon
Development Project Coordinator/Recording Secretary
The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banninglive.viebit.com/player.php?hash=vWhJh8MECBMx or by purchasing a DVD:
https://banningca.gov/forms.aspx?fid=148
3 804

CITY OF BANNING

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Adam B. Rush, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: December 1, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-19, approving a CEQA Exemption and Conditional Use Permit No. 21-8018 (CUP 21-8018) to allow a Tattoo Studio located at 191 North San Gorgonio Avenue the Downtown Commercial Land Use District (DC) (APN: 540-164- 006)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2021-19 approving the following:

1. Making a determination under CEQA Guidelines that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

2. Approving Conditional Use Permit 21-8018 to allow a tattoo studio with related services in the Downtown Commercial (DC) General Plan Designation and Zoning District subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval.

APPLICANT INFORMATION:

Project Location: 191 N. San Gorgonio Ave.

APN Information: 540-164-006
Project Applicant: Jessica Herring
37635 Quintana Dr.

Murrieta, CA 92543
Property Owner: William Ira & Bill Willens Trust
191 N. San Gorgonio Ave.

Banning, CA 92220
4 805
CUP 21-8018
December 1, 2021

Page 2 of 4 ends

REQUEST:

The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to provide tattoo services within an existing 1,213 square foot lease space within an existing commercial tenant space. The proposed project is located within the Downtown Commercial (DC) Zoning District on real property located at 191 N. San Gorgonio Ave.

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:

The surrounding commercial environment is fully developed with one-to-two story buildings that are similar in size and architectural theme to the Downtown Commercial District. The proposed tattoo studio is located at what is considered “the heart” of the Banning Downtown and is consistent with the nature and type of development envisioned. The adjacent commercial buildings are currently occupied with several small business including the Dorthey Ramon Learning Center, the Substation Deli, a Candy Store, and several other uses that are similar in size and use. The proposed Conditional Use Permit application seeks to allow tattoo services at three workstations in the existing 1,213 square foot tenant space, including the customer lobby, drawing table, and administrative space.

The site is located within the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district, wherein Tattoo and Body Piercing Studios are permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district is the City's visitor and tourist destination where the City promotes businesses and uses that contribute to a walkable environment during afternoon and evening hours, and where the public can enjoy a variety of food, beverages, and entertainment while patronizing the City of Banning.

Land Use Summary Table
Existing Land Use Zoning Designation General Plan
Designation
Subject
Site Single-story retail Downtown Commercial (DC)
Downtown Commercial
(DC)
North Banning Library Downtown
Commercial (DC)
Downtown Commercial
(DC)
South Mixed-Use
Residential/Commercial
Downtown
Commercial (DC)
Downtown Commercial
(DC)
East Vacant Downtown
Commercial (DC)
Downtown Commercial
(DC)
West Single-story retail Downtown
Commercial (DC)
Downtown Commercial
(DC)
5 806
CUP 21-8018
December 1, 2021

Page 3 of 4 ends

ANALYSIS:

Zoning
Table 17.12.020 (“Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Commercial and Industrial Uses”) of Title 17 of the Zoning Code permits Tattoo and Body Piercing Studios in the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

The Project will occupy the 1,213 square foot lease space and is proposing operational hours of 10:00 pm to 10:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. The applicants have stated that the atmosphere of the art studio is a professional setting. With the attached Conditions of Approval, requiring sanitary conditions and specifying employee conduct and inspections, the services are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the area businesses or the community.

The Police Department, the Code Enforcement Division and the Fire Department may enter any tattoo and body piercing business during regular business hours to make reasonable inspections to ascertain whether the provisions of Chapter 17.12.050 of the Banning Municipal Code are being complied with, provided reasonable and normal business operations shall not be interfered with by said inspection.

Parking Requirements
The vacant tenant space has accomodated a number of businesses over the years and has always been maintained in a state of good repair. The size of the tattoo business is not anticipated to generate significant traffic or need for parking and available public parking is located to the east and southeast, both within city-owned lots. Parking is free in the downtown area and past business have functioned well without any parking issues.

Per Banning Municipal Code Section 17.24.020 (“Applicability”) all new projects, redevelopment projects, and project modifications which add twenty-five percent or more to a structure’s building area are required to conform to the development standards set forth in Division III of Title 17 of the Banning Municipal Code, including regulations related to off-street parking, setbacks, public street improvements, storage, and fences, walls, and hedges. The applicants’ proposal seeks approval of a use, not an expansion of the existing building area. Therefore, the proposed use is not subject to the development standards set forth in Division III of Title 17 of the Banning Municipal Code. Further, staff finds that the exisitng parking is adequate to serve patrons of the proposed tattoo studio and no additional parking is required.

Conclusion
Staff recommends approval of the subject project as the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Code, while not effecting the environment. The project adequately meets the performance standards and guidelines 6 807
CUP 21-8018
December 1, 2021

Page 4 of 4 ends

as discussed in the staff report; or, will meet those requirements as stated in the conditions of approval and upon review and approval of the construction plans and specifications.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities), a Class 1 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from further environmental review. A Class 1 Categorical Exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP):

Planning Division staff has determined that the project is not subject to MSHCP as the project is an existing facility and no new exterior improvements are identified.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
Proposed Conditional Use Permit 21-8018 and was advertised in the Record Gazette newspaper on November 19, 2021. Notice was also mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the project site and posted in two public places (Banning Library and City Hall).

As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments for or against the project.

Reviewed by:

Adam B. Rush, AICP

Adam B. Rush, M.A., AICP
Community Development Director
Attachments:

1. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9755/Resolution-No-2021-19- with-COAs

2. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9756/Project-Plans

3. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9757/Public-Hearing-Notice

4. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9758/CUP-21-8018-NOE 7 808

CITY OF BANNING

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Adam B. Rush, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Lisa Edwards, Contract Planner and Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney
MEETING DATE: December 1, 2021
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164, A PROPOSED MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL/RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 47-ACRES WITHIN THE
SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AS AMENDED.

THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SHELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
MEASURING 619,959 SQUARE FEET, WHICH INCLUDES
10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. IN ADDITION, THE
PROJECT PROPOSES SIX (6) RETAIL/RESTAURANT
BUILDINGS TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET. THE
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WILL SUBDIVIDE THE 47-ACRE
PARCEL INTO THREE (3) LOTS, FOR FINANCING AND
CONVEYANCE PURPOSES. (APN: 419-140-057).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action:

1. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-16:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the Community Development Department has considered the potential environmental impacts of the Project. Community Development Department staff has also reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the “Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5” project certified by the City Council on December 8, 2020 (Resolution 2020- 141) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation, 8 809
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 2 of 10 ends

Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the Council on the same day, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein.

Based on that review, the Community Development Department has determined that the Project and the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken do not involve substantial changes which will result in new significant environmental effects, and the Project does not involve new information of substantial importance which shows that the Project will have significant effects not discussed in the prior FEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the “Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5” project and the Project are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the MMRP.

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations), a Notice of Determination (NOD) has a been prepared for the Commission to consider in conjunction with the Project. b. Approve Design Review No. 21-7008, subject to the following:
i. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution 2021-16.
ii. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Plans dated April 30, 2021 approved by the City.
c. Approving Tentative Parcel Map 38164, subject to the following:
i. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-16.

PROJECT / APPLICANT INFORMATION:

Project Owner: Sun Lakes Highland, LLC
1200 N. 52nd St.

Phoenix, AZ 85008
Project Applicant: MIG
1650 Spruce St., Ste. 106
Riverside, CA 92507
Project Location: North of Sun Lakes Boulevard, east of Highland Springs Avenue, south of Interstate 10, and west of The Lakes
Apartment Complex, all located in the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan No. 5
APN Information: 419-140-057
9 810
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 3 of 10 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project contains two separate land use types, an industrial warehouse, and a retail component, both which reflect compliance and consistency with the recently updated Sun Lakes village North Specific Plan, Amendment 5 (“Specific Plan”). The industrial warehouse is to the north of the site on 30.14 acres and the retail buildings are on 6.9 acres. This application includes a Design Review Application, a Tentative Parcel Map, and an Environmental analysis.

BACKGROUND:

On November 4, 2020 the Planning Commission considered Amendment 5 to the Sun Lakes North Specific Plan. This amendment produced an entirely new land use plan and zoning for this legacy Specific Plan, originally approved in the late 1980’s. The Specific Plan area had remained undeveloped for over 30-years due to overly restrictive zoning, failed real estate transactions, and continued community opposition. Prior to the most recent amendment, the entire Specific Plan was designated as Retail Commercial, and the implementing zoning ordinance was even more restrictive, thus requiring very specific and sometimes fickle development plans to continually stall before they reached the engineering stage.

In late 2019, the City initiated an overhaul of the Specific Plan in order to foster future economic development and position the property to take advantage of current economic trends. It was in consultation with the property owner, but utilizing City-managed contract planning staff, that the current version of the plan was developed, vetted, and presented to the Commission for review and consideration.

After careful consideration, the City Council approved the Specific Plan Amendment and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Resolution 2020-141) along adopting a statement of overriding considerations. This statement acknowledges that significant impacts to the environment will occur yet are outweighed by the substantial economic benefit potential of the Project. Further, the Council determined that the Project will create significant job opportunities, increase both property and sales tax revenue, and continued to diversify the City’s land use potential.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

During the October 19, 2021 Public Hearing, the Commission heard public testimony in connection with the Project. A majority of public testimony came from the Sun Lakes Community and was mainly in opposition to the Project. The Commission solicited testimony from a large number of Sun Lakes residents, which centered around several core issues of concern. A summary, but not an exhaustive list of the concerns are provided below:
10 811
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 4 of 10 ends

• Public Notice
• Traffic/Circulation
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Lighting
• Building location
• Future Job Growth
• Golf Cart Access
• Sun Lakes Blvd. Extension
• Health Impacts
Attached herein is an Issues of Concern & Response Matrix, which provides clarification and technical back-up to support the City’s position on this variety of topics PROJECT ANALYSIS:

The northern portion of the Project site is a proposed Industrial Warehouse Building measuring 619,959 square feet (sf), which includes a 10,000 square foot of office space.

In addition, the Project includes six (6) Retail buildings totaling approximately 34,000 sf., which range in size from 1,600 sf to 8,400 sf. Building 1 will include a coffee restaurant with a drive-thru and the remaining five (5) buildings are intended for sit-down restauranttype uses. The current Specific Plan Land Uses are designated as Business and Warehouse, Office and Professional, and Retail and Service.

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
TABLE 1 – Land Uses:

NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
Interstate 10 Sun Lakes Country
Club, The Lakes
Assisted Living and
Vacant land
Sun Lakes
Country Club
Sun Lakes
Village Shopping
Center
TABLE 2 – Zoning:

NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
Public Facilities
(PF)
Medium Density
Residential
(MDR)/Open
Space (OS)
Medium
Density
Residential
(MDR)/Open
Space (OS)
General
Commercial (GC)
11 812
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 5 of 10 ends

Architectural Design
The industrial warehouse building will be constructed with concrete tilt-up walls with painted and scored accents. The design provides glazing and color variation to ease the length of the industrial warehouse building. The elevations utilize a combination of materials and colors. The warehouse building will use paint by Sherwin-Williams with colors Extra White with Gray Screen, Software, and Cyberspace with trims of Heartthrob between the gray panels. There are aluminum windows and door frames with tempered glazing in a blue reflective color that will be located on the wall panels, the building corners, and the four (4) potential office areas. There are Metal Canopies with Pure White and clear Anodized Mullions to accent the building. The proposed 14’ concrete tilt-up walls will screen the truck yards and the colors will match the paint and color variations of the warehouse building.

The main colors of the retail buildings will be Sherwin-Williams Extra White with accents colors of White Brick, Warm Brick, and Metal Siding. The storefront aluminum windows and door framing will use a blue reflective window glazing and is also located on the wall panels and the building corners. There are Pure White Metal Canopies with clear Anodized Mullions to provide distinction accents to the buildings.

Landscaping
Landscaping is provided along the parkway on Sun Lakes Boulevard, on the side and freeway setbacks adjacent to the property lines and buildings, and throughout the parking areas. The project provides landscaping over the 15% requirement with 16.23% on the industrial site and 39.7% on the retail site.

Circulation - Access and On-Site
The main access points for the Project are as follows:
• Access points off Sun Lakes Blvd: 40' wide driveway (at cul-de-sac) & 46' driveway (divided by 6' median) & 40' wide shared driveway
• Access points for retail: West side - 24' wide driveway off Sun Lakes Village Dr & East side - Two (2) 26' wide driveways off shared driveway • Access points for warehouse: West side- 29'-10" wide driveway off Sun Lakes Village Dr & East side- Three (3) driveways 24' wide, 29' wide, 40' wide off shared driveway
• There are 24’-0’ wide emergency vehicle access roads provided around the south and north sides of the retail buildings, throughout the north and south truck courts, around the industrial building and through all the parking areas of the site. 12 813
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 6 of 10 ends

Development Standards
Future industrial buildings are subject to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan zoning standards and development design guidelines, which are summarized in the following table:

TABLE 3 – Development Standards (I):

Development Standards
Industrial Warehouse Building
Required Provided
Lot Size 10,000 s.f. 1,316,349 s.f.

Lot Width 70 feet 1,270 feet
Lot Depth 100 feet 876 feet
Building Height 55 feet 47’-6”
Building Setbacks:

Front
Side
Rear
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
185 feet
70 feet
185 feet
Building Coverage 55% 47%
Landscape Coverage 15% of lot minus
building area

16.23%
Fence/Wall Height 8 feet Fence – 8 feet
Wall – 14 feet
Parking Requirements
Office – 1 space per 300 s.f. 40 40
Warehouse Parking – 22 spaces
plus 1 space per 2,000 s.f. over
20k s.f.
322 362
The retail and restaurant buildings will be subject to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan zoning standards for development and design, which are provided in the following table:

TABLE 3 – Development Standards (R)
Development Standards Retail
and Restaurant Buildings
Required Provided
Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 297,492 s.f.
13 814
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 7 of 10 ends

Development Standards Retail
and Restaurant Buildings
Required Provided
Lot Width 60 feet 1,300 feet
Lot Depth 100 feet 200 feet
Building Height 35 feet 20’ – 6”
Building Setbacks:

Front
Side
Rear
0 feet
20 feet
20 feet
100 feet
80 feet
30 feet
Building Coverage 55% 11.4%
Landscape Coverage 15% of lot
minus parking
area

34.9%
Fence/Wall Height 6 feet N/A
Parking Requirements
Drive Thru – 1 space per 100 s.f. 16 16
Retail – 1 space per 250 s.f. 130 273
The Project has been reviewed by Planning Department staff and determined to either meet or exceeds all required standards.

Tentative Parcel Map
A Tentative Parcel Map is submitted as part of this application review and will subdivide the entire site (47-acres) into three (3) parcels. Parcel 1 will accommodate the six (6) retail buildings, Parcel 2 will provide for the industrial warehouse building, and the third parcel is not intended for development at this time, however, there is an access road illustrated on the plans. That parcel is labeled “Not A Part” (N.A.P.).

Phasing
The Project is being proposed in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of the industrial building with construction projected to begin early 2022. Phase 2 will consist of the retail portion and is projected to begin construction early 2023.

Environmental Review
Upon the City’s request, the applicant provided a “Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Consistency Determination” to conclude if the Project would be consistent with the previous EIR prepared for the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan. Since the project 14 815
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 8 of 10 ends

is approximately 300,000 net square feet less in developed area than the project envisioned in the preceding EIR, the following findings can be made:

1. The Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) being used is a threshold for traffic less intense than originally envisioned in the Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 EIR.

2. The projected air quality, while still unattainable in the South Coast Air Basin, is less impactful than the project envisioned in the Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 EIR

3. The proposed project will provide significantly more landscaping.

As the implementing Project is less intensive that previously approved through the Specific Plan Amendment, the development is an environmentally superior alternative to the maximums allowed under the EIR. Therefore, the analysis for the Project is consistent with, or is superior to, the expectations considered under the Specific Plan.

As such, and no further review or mitigation is required as all significant impacts were disclosed under the previous EIR, the adoption of Resolution 2020-141, which includes the Council’s the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Matrix (MMRP). Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental review or mitigation measures are required.

FIGURE 1. Vicinity Map
15 816
Staff Report: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001
December 1, 2021

Page 9 of 10 ends

FIGURE 2. Zoning Map
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION:

The proposed Project was advertised in the Record Gazette newspaper on November 19, 2021. As of the date of this report, City staff has received numerous correspondence (primarily in the form of email) that were in opposition to the proposed project.

Reviewed by:

Adam Rush
Adam B. Rush, AICP
Community Development Director
Attachments:

1. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9761/Resolution-2021- 16-with-COAs

2. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9762/Project-Plans

3. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9763/DR-21-7008-PHN

4. https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9764/DR-21-7008-NOD 16 817

TOPIC ISSUE OF

CONCERN

LOCATION W/IN

THE DOCUMENT
CITY’S RESPONSE APPLICANT’S

RESPONSE
Public Notice Was the Project
noticed in a manner
consistent with state
law, city ordinance,
and similar to all other
Planning Commission
project types?
October 19th and
December 1st Staff
Reports, located on
the last few pages of
the report.

The City published a written
notification, in the Record
Gazette, on October 8th which
were prepared for the October
19th Planning Commission (PC)
Public Hearing. Proof of
publication, as received from the
Record Gazette, is attached to
this report. Furthermore, the City
requested Property Owner
Notification Labels, from the
County of Riverside’s Assessor’s
Office. These labels were
generated on May 18, 2021. The
labels conform to §65091(a) – (d)
and Chapter 17.68.020 of the
Banning Municipal Code (BMC),
which (in-part) requires
notification to be mailed to all
property owners within a 300-foot
radius. The labels generated 98
separate addresses, three of
which include the Sun Lakes
HOA (local and corporate offices)
and the property owner for The
Lakes Assisted Living facility as
well. It is important to note that
§65093 of the Planning and
Zoning Laws, states, “Failure
of any person or entity to
receive notice given pursuant
to this title, or pursuant to the
procedures established by a
charted city, shall not
The Applicant has agreed
with the City’s request to
generate property owner
notification labels to
increase the radius from
300-feet to 1,000-feet
(more than 3-times
greater than the minimum
distance required by
§65091(a) – (d) and
Chapter 17.68.020 of the
BMC. Again, these
notices were physically
mailed to the Sun Lakes
HOA offices (both on-site
and at their corporate
headquarters). In addition,
the property owner of The
Lakes Assisted Living
facility also received their
fourth public notice
regarding the Project. In
addition, the City has
provided noticed via email
to the Sun Lakes HOA
Manager, Mr. Jason
Ewals and copied to C.

Mitchell. This email
notification was
transmitted on November
17th and received the
same day. Copies of
these emails are attached
herein.
17 818
constitute grounds for any
court to invalidate the actions
of a local
agency for which the notice
was given.

Traffic/Circulation Daily & AM/PM Peak
Hour Truck Trips;
Queuing of trucks
along Sun Lakes
Blvd.; interaction
between planned golf
cart paths and truck
traffic
Draft Environmental
Impact Report
(DEIR) Master Traffic
Impact Analysis
(MTIA) and CEQA
Addendum and
Project-level Traffic
Impact Analysis
(PTIA)
TRUCK TRIPS: The City’s
Traffic Consultant completed a
Master TIA in September, 2020.

Table 4-2, of the Master TIA,
details that 21 (4+ axle truck)
trips are inbound, and 5 trips are
outbound, in the AM Peak Hour.

Conversely, 5 (4+ axle truck)
trips are inbound, and 17 (4+ axle
truck) trips are outbound in the
PM Peak Hour. In total, the
Master TIA concluded that only
48 (4+ axle truck) trips would
occur each weekday (M-F).

In October, 2021 the Applicant’s
Traffic Consultant completed a
Project-level TIA, which analyzed
three separate industrial uses.

According to Table 3, of the
October 4, 2021 TIA the report
concluded that a total of 26 truck
trips would occur in both the AM
and PM Peak Hours. This is a
maximum of 13-trucks per day,
during normal business days (MF). This is a reduction of 25 truck trips (12.5 trucks per day) from
the Master TIA.

Concerns regarding
the stacking of trucks
on both Sun Lakes
Village Drive and Sun
Lakes Blvd. was
expressed during
public testimony.

CEQA Addendum
Site Plan
18 819
Concerns regarding
the interaction
between semitrailers
and golf carts was
raised during public
testimony.

Site Plan
The updated Project-level TIA
evaluated a development plan that
is approximately 70% the size
of the Specific Plan. The
updated TIA concludes that no
more than 3 trucks per hour
(per work day) will enter and
exit the Project site.

TRUCK QUEUING: The City’s
Public Works Department
conditioned the Project to extend
the left-handed turn pocket, from
eastbound (E/B) Sun Lakes Blvd.
into N/B Sun Lakes Village Drive,
which provides direct access into
the Albertson’s shopping center.

This improved turn pocket will be
approximately 150-feet long and
is adequate to remove trucks
from the existing two E/B through
lanes as drivers approach the
Sun Lakes Main Gate. In
addition, the City has conditioned
the construction of a dedicated
truck stacking lane, on the
easterly R/W of Sun Lakes
Village Drive that will be separate
from either the N/B or S/B travel
lanes within Sun Lakes Village
Drive.

As stated above, the Project-
level TIA concluded that a
maximum of 3 trucks per hour
19 820
1 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm#length will enter and exit the Project site.

According to the Federal
Department of Transportation
(DOT), the maximum average
length of a commercial
semitrailer is 48-feet; however,
semitrailers up to 53-feet may
also operate without a permit.1
By using the maximum
semitrailer length (including the
tractor and cab) of 53-feet,
adequate travel area is provided
to accommodate the maximum
number of semitrailers to and
from the project site.

GOLF CART PATH: The City
Council held a study session
during the October 12, 2021
meeting, during which the Public
Works Director presented three
scenarios to accommodate golf
cart travel from the Sun Lakes
community, northerly across Sun
Lakes Blvd., westerly along the
northerly R/W of Sun Lakes Blvd.
and accessing the Sun Lakes
Shopping Center via Sun Lakes
Village Drive.

The Sun Lakes Village North
Specific Plan requires the
20 821
accommodation of golf cart
access per Policy 2.2.3.

As such, the City has conditioned
the Project which requires a
dedicated golf cart path to be
constructed from the southerly
Right-of-Way (R/W) of Sun
Lakes, to the northerly R/W and
into the Project’s parking lot. This
lot will be located adjacent to Sun
Lakes Blvd. The required Golf
Cart path will traverse northerly,
to the ternal drive aisle that
segregates the industrial and
retail uses.

Air Quality Due to the increase in
truck traffic, resulting
from the Project, an
unhealthy and
potentially dangers
Concerns related to
the emission of
diesel particulate
matter (‘PM’),
resulting from the
travel and transport
of Semitrailers.

According to the Air Quality/GHG
Impact Analysis (prepared as
part of the Specific Plan
Amendment, dated July 9, 2020)
the Project, which evaluated a
square-footage maximum of
877,298 sq. ft. specifically for
industrial/warehouse uses. The
estimated generation of
Particular Matter (PM) – for both
10 and 2.5 microns – is 42.93
pounds per day (lbs./day) of PM10
and 12.15 lbs./day of PM2.5.

The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD)
regulates the emission of several
pollutants of concern, for both
21 822
2 Page B-1, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/particulate-matter-(pm)-2.5-significance-thresholdsand-calculation-methodology/final_pm2_5methodology.pdf?sfvrsn=2 construction and operational
aspects of any new development
project. Consequently, the
SCAQMD is responsible for
establishing Mass Daily
Thresholds for the following
pollutants of concern: NOx, CO,
VOC, SOx, and PM10. For
Particulate Matter, SCAQMD
Thresholds of Significance are
150 lbs./day for PM10 and 17
lbs./day for PM2.5 (when a
sensitive receptor is positioned
at-least 100-feet from the Project
property line.2 According to
Google Earth®, the nearest
residential dwelling is in excess
of 600-feet from any industrial
operation. Compared to the
SCAQMD established
thresholds, the maximum daily
emissions of PM2.5 is 166
lbs./day; again, the July 9, 2020
Air Quality Impact Analysis
concluded that a maximum of

12.15 lbs./day will be generated
from an anticipated project size
of approximately 877,000 sq. ft.

Therefore, the June 9, 2020 Air
Quality Impact Analysis
concluded that both
measurements of Particulate
Matter emissions are below the
22 823
established thresholds set forth
by SCAQMD.

As required by the Certified EIR,
an updated Air Quality Impact
Analysis is required, prior to the
approval of any implementing
project. As such, an updated Air
Quality Impact Analysis was
prepared by Urban Crossroads
for the subject Project. The
updated report evaluated the
implementing project, which was
reduced from 877,298 sq. ft. to
619,959 sq. ft. (which is
approximately a 30% reduction in
the overall development area).

As shown on pages 7-9 (of the
updated report), the Project will
have a less than significant
impact upon local air quality
pollutants of concern, primarily
those associated with diesel fuel
and semitrailer truck trips (e.g.,
PM10 and PM2.5). It is further
stated within the report that the
long-term operational impacts
will not create an adverse impact
upon the health of the
surrounding community. As
stated on Page 11, of the
updated report, the Project will
increase the potential cancer risk
by 1.32 in every one (1) million
residents). For example, this
23 824
would be an increase in
approximately one (1) additional
person developing a cancer
related to negative Air Quality for
a City approximately 33 times the
size as the City of Banning.

Increases to
Noise
That the Project will
result in a permanent
and significant
increase in the
ambient noise levels
which will negatively
impact the
surrounding
community
CEQA Addendum;
Sun Lakes Village
North Specific Plan
Noise Monitoring
Report (dated July 9,
2020)
The Applicant’s consultant
conducted an ambient noise
monitoring study on July 1, 2020.

Based on recommendations of
Caltrans and the FTA, it is not
necessary to collect
measurements at each individual
building or residence, because
each receiver measurement
represents a group of buildings
that share acoustical
equivalence. The noise report
concluded that Daytime ambient
noise levels range from 59.0 to

64.0 dBA Leq and Nighttime
noise levels range from 51.3 to

57.6 dBA Leq.

The operational noise impacts
will exceed the City’s noise
standards of 55 dBA, at three
proposed locations: (1) Parking
Lot; (2) Semitrailer loading and
unloading; and (3) truck delivery
area. The maximum daytime
noise impacts are 75 dBA for all
three measurements.

Therefore, the Project has been
conditioned to provide for
24 825
sufficient buffering, the
construction of sound walls or
similar features that reduces
daytime noise.

Light Pollution Concerns that the
parking lot and
security lighting will
increase light pollution
and disturb
surrounding residents.

Specific Plan
Amendment No. 5 –
Design Guidelines
and Draft EIR –
Chapter 4.1
(Aesthetics)
The City’s Municipal Code
requires all lighting to be directed
downward and shielded from
public view. In addition, lighting
shall not be permitted which
blinks, flashes, or is of unusually
high intensity or brightness.

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

Building
Location/Size
Concerns that the
size and location of
the proposed
industrial building will
obscure natural views
and degrade the
existing landscape
Specific Plan
Amendment No. 5 –
Design Guidelines
and Draft EIR –
Chapter 4.1
(Aesthetics)
The Specific Plan sets forth
comprehensive design standards
that separate semitrailers from
passenger vehicles and
pedestrians; provides an internal
drive aisle linking the Retail &
Service District to the Office &
Professional District. The
adopted amendments to the
Development Standards and
Design Guidelines section of the
Specific Plan establish general
provisions for site design,
circulation, architecture,
landscape, walls, fences,
screening, and buffers.
25 826
Future Job
Growth
Concerns that the
Project will not create
sufficient employment
in order to justify is
operation
Sun Lakes –
Executive Summary
of Economic Benefit
Analysis (DPFG)
According to an Economic
Analysis, prepared by
Development, Planning, &
Financing Group, Inc. (DPFG) –
dated November, 2020, the
Project will create 722
permanent jobs at build-out. In
the first phase, which is the
Industrial Warehouse, the DPFG
report concludes that 296
permanent jobs will be created.

The second phase (Retail) will
create 70, and the office park
will contribute the remaining 356
job.

Sun Lakes Blvd.

Extension
Concerns that the
extension Sun Lakes
Blvd. will not be
constructed until after
the Project begins
construction.

Therefore, traffic will
be irreparably harmed.

Sun Lakes Blvd.

Construction
Documents &
Specific Plan
Phasing Plan (Pg.

4.2-10 of the EIR)
The City anticipates the release
of Bid Documents, associated
with the Sun Lakes Extension
Blvd. Roadway Project in late
2022. This will allow construction
to start in early 2023 and be
completed by the end of 2023.

If approved, the Banning Point
project can obtain Building
Permits by Summer of 2022 and
complete the construction of
619,969 sq. ft.in approximately 8-
months.

Assuming both of these timelines
stay on track, the timeframe
between construction of the
Industrial warehouse versus the
Sun Lakes Blvd. extension
26 827
roadway project will be
approximately 6-months.

Given that the extension will not
likely be completed before a
Certificate of Occupancy is
issued, the Project has been
condition for the additional
circulation improvements as
stated in the Traffic section
above.
27 828
829
SUN LAKES BLVD. OVERALL SITE PLAN DAB-A1.1 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/12/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C TS T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT DATA VICINITY MAP Property owner Address of the property Assossor's Parcel Number Legal description Applicant Applicant's respresentative Zoning SITE PLAN KEYNOTES SITE LEGEND SITE 830
WL1-3
A WL1-3 A A WL1-3
WL1-3
A
T
WL1-3
A
WL1-3
A
A WL1-3
WL1-3
A WL1-3 A
A WL1-3
WL1-3
A
A WL1-3
SUN LAKES BLVD. PROJECT PLAN DAB-A1.1A Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/12/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.
- SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point
MA
G
N
N O Y

L I C E N S
E
D
A
R
C
H

I T E C T

S T A T E
O
F
C
A
L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES LEGEND 831
ENLARGED SITE PLAN DAB-A1.2 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/12/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.
- SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point
MA
G
N
N O Y

L I C E N S
E
D
A
R
C
H

I T E C T

S T A T E
O
F
C
A
L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES SITE PLAN KEYNOTES SITE LEGEND 832
ENLARGED SITE PLAN DAB-A1.3 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/12/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES SITE PLAN KEYNOTES SITE LEGEND 833
SECTION DAB-A1.4 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/12/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES 834
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES DETAILS DAB-A1.5 835
T SCREENWALL DAB-A1.6 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/12/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES LEGEND 836
WL1-3 A WL1-3 A A WL1-3
WL1-3 A T
WL1-3 A
WL1-3 A A WL1-3
WL1-3 A WL1-3 A A WL1-3
WL1-3 A A WL1-3 SCREENWALL DAB-A1.7 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/12/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES 837
T OVERALL FLOOR PLAN DAB-A2.1 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES FLOOR SLAB AND POUR STRIPS REQ. GENERAL NOTES - FLOOR PLAN KETNOTES - FLOOR PLAN 838
RETAIL FLOOR PLAN DAB-A2.2 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES FLOOR SLAB AND POUR STRIPS REQ. GENERAL NOTES - FLOOR PLAN KETNOTES - FLOOR PLAN 839
ELEVATION DAB-A3.1 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES 840
ELEVATION DAB-A3.2 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES 841
ELEVATIONS DAB-A3.3 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS GLAZING LEGEND COLOR SCHEDULE - ELEVATIONS 842
ELEVATIONS DAB-A3.4 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS GLAZING LEGEND COLOR SCHEDULE - ELEVATIONS 843
ELEVATIONS DAB-A3.5 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS GLAZING LEGEND COLOR SCHEDULE - ELEVATIONS 844
DETAILS DAB-A4.1 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION 20394 11/10/21 fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc. - SLM City of Banning, CA Banning Point MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 HUNTER THIENES 845
846
847
BY MARK APPR. DATE ENGINEER CITY DESCRIPTION REINHARD STENZEL DATE R.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-22 SEAL DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: DATE: JOB NUMBER: FILE NO: OF SHEETS COMPANY NAME J.P. D.P. R.S. NEC OF SUN LAKES BLVD AND SUN LAKES DRIVE, BANNING CA 1" = 20' 848
BY MARK APPR. DATE ENGINEER CITY DESCRIPTION REINHARD STENZEL DATE R.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-22 SEAL DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: DATE: JOB NUMBER: FILE NO: OF SHEETS COMPANY NAME J.P. D.P. R.S. NEC OF SUN LAKES BLVD AND SUN LAKES DRIVE, BANNING CA 1" = 20' 849
BY MARK APPR. DATE

ENGINEER CITY

DESCRIPTION
REINHARD STENZEL DATER.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-22
SEAL DESIGN BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

DATE:

JOB NUMBER:

FILE NO:

OF SHEETS

COMPANY NAME
J.P.D.P.R.S.

NEC OF SUN LAKES BLVD AND

SUN LAKES DRIVE, BANNING CA
1" = 20'
850
BY MARK APPR. DATE

ENGINEER CITY

DESCRIPTION
REINHARD STENZEL DATER.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-22
SEAL DESIGN BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

DATE:

JOB NUMBER:

FILE NO:

OF SHEETS

COMPANY NAME
J.P.D.P.R.S.

NEC OF SUN LAKES BLVD AND

SUN LAKES DRIVE, BANNING CA
1" = 20'
851
852
1 Gal 8' O.C. Lantana 'Gold Mound' 1 Gal 36" O.C. Acacia redolens 'Low Boy' Dwarf Acacia Yellow Lantana ACCENTS GROUNDCOVER Rosmarinus o. 'Huntington Carpet' 1 Gal 48" O.C. Baccharis p. 'Pigeon Point' 1 Gal 6' O.C. Dwarf Coyote Bush L Rosemary Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Coast Rosemary Westringia fruticosa LLL SYMBOL SIZE REMARKS SHRUBS BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME WUCOLS SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS REMARKS SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WUCOLS REMARKS Prostrate Rosemary Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Lonicera j. 'Halliana' Hall's Honeysuckle 1 Gal 48" O.C. L Coral Aloe Aloe striata 1 Gal L 5 Gal L 5 Gal L Callistemon 'Little John' Dwarf Bottle Brush 5 Gal L Mexican Sage Salvia leucantha 5 Gal L 5 Gal L Agave 'Blue Glow 5 Gal L Blue Glow Agave Foreground Hedge Foreground Hedge Foreground Foreground Foreground No Shear Foreground Foreground Foreground Foreground Autumn Sage Salvia greggii Texas Privet Ligustrum j. Texanum Baccharis p. 'Centenial' 5 Gal Coyote Bush L 5 Gal M 5 Gal L Allen Chickering Sage Salvia c. 'Allen Chickering' 5 Gal L Fortnight Lily Dietes bicolor 5 Gal M Deer Grass Muhlenbergia rigens 5 Gal M Dwarf Coast Rosemary Westringia f. 'Grey Box 5 Gal L Lion's Tail Leonotis leonurus 5 Gal M Hedge Hedge Flowering Accent Flowering Accent Flowering Accent Flowering Accent Foreground Grass Agave attenuata 5 Gal L Agave Gazania 'Yellow Mitua' Yellow Gazania 4" Pots 12" O.C. M Star Jasmine Trachelopspermum jasminiodes 1 Gal 24" O.C. M Carissa m. 'Green Carpet' Prostrate Natal Plum 1 Gal 36" O.C. M No Shear No Shear Foreground Brisbane Box Tristania conferta 24" Box Afghan Pine Pinus eldarica 14 L California Pepper Schinus molle L 15 Gal 21 M Multi Standard Standard 24" Box Chinese Flame Tree Koelreuteria bipinnata 6 M Multi Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 24" Box 39 L Standard Cercidium 'Desert Museum' Blue Palo Verde Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow 24" Box 32 L Multi 24" Box 59 L Multi 24" Box 6 L Standard TREES SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME PLANTING LEGEND SIZE QTY WUCOLS REMARKS Chilean Mesquite Prosopis chilensis 24" Box 67 M Multi 36" Box 8 36" Box 12 36" Box 3 36" Box 2 36" Box 11 36" Box 8 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa 24" Box Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia i 'Muskogee' 5 M Multi 4' OC 3' OC 3' OC 3' OC 3' OC 4' OC 3' OC 4' OC 3' OC 3' OC 3' OC 5' OC SPACING 3' OC 3' OC 3' OC 3' OC Landscape Area Calculations Parking Lot Landscape AreaPlanting areas
88,745 sf128,855
Total Landscape Area 217,600 sf T Banning, California 21-021 04.20.21 Banning Point 0 40' 80' 160' 711 FEE ANA STREET 714.986.2400 FAX 714.986.2408 PLACENTIA, CA 92870 N 10.06.21 11.16.21 SUN LAKES BLVD. STREETSCAPE TREES SIZED AT 36" BOX 853
§¨¦10

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

AUTUMN LN
G
O
L
D
E
N
S
K
Y
C
T

GRANDVIEW AVE
HIS
TL
E
C
R
E
E
K
HIG
H
L
A
N
D
H
O
M
E

SAINT ANDREWS WAY

ELDORADO CT

RIVIERA AVE

LORI W AY

AUGUSTA WAY

COUNTRY CLUB DR
C
O
MME
R
C
E
WA
Y
1ST ST
Y
HIL
L
R
D

SUN LAKES BLVD

SUN LAKES BLVD
S
UN
LA
KES
VIL
LA
G
E
D
R

RAMSEY ST

COUNTRY
CL
UB
DR

SILVER LAKES AVE

SPRING VIEW PL

OLYMPIC AV
HIG
HLA
ND
H
O
ME
R
D
A
P
EX
S
T
A
P
EX
A
VE
LA

COSTA DR
H
O
GA
N
A
VE

PINEHURST DR

PINE VALLEY
R
D
TR
O
U
T
R
U
N

GEM CREEK

OAK TREE AVE

CHERRY HILL AVE

TORREY PINES
RD
BEVE
R
L
Y
D
R

GRANITE CREEK

LELAND ST
LA

QUINTA DR

QUIET CREEK

ROLLING HILLS AVE

KINGSWELL AV

FLAMINGO ST

PEBBLE BEACH DR

UMA VALLEY RD

MERION CT
CA
S
CA
D
E
C
R
E

MAIRFIELD CT
PAIN
T
C
R
EE
K

SEMINOLE CT
MEA
D
O
W
LA
KE
LN
CRA
NE
CREEK

RIVIERA AVE
NO
R
TH
W
O
O
D
A
VE

SPRING VIEW DR
FE
R
N
C
R
E
E
K

CORRAL CIR

MAIDSTONE
ST

WESTWARD AV
JA
NA
N
C
T

SHOAL CREEK ST
C
YP
R
E
S
S
P
OIN
T
2ND ST

OAKHURST AVE

INDIAN WELLS RD

EVELYN DR

LES L IE
C
T
HIG
HLA
ND
S
P
R
NI G
S
A
VE

BROOKLAWN DR

FLORA ST

SALEM CIR
EMORY
A
VE

LESLIE ST
N
U
T
W
O
O
D
A
VE
C
O
L
D
S
P
RIN
G
A
VE
MA
RL
B
O
R
O
WA
Y

WINGFOOT AVE

MEADOW WAY
CLA
RI C
T

SPRING CREEK

SKYVIEW CIR
DA
WN
WA
Y

TWIN HILLS
D

BANYONS
R
T

LINKS AVE

POPLAR CREEK
SITA
RAAVE

ESSEX WAY
MA
RIA
N
WA
Y
WHIS
KE
Y
C
R
E
E
K
6TH ST
MIL
L
C
R
E
EK
C
O
L
E
MA
N
C
R
EE
K
S
HIN
N
E
C
O
C
K
D
R

CHRISTY DR

COMPASS CREEK
VI O
R
Y
A
VE

CHAPPAREL
WAY
I 10
I 10
I 10
C

BROOKSIDE DR

PALMER DR
BIG
SPRING
DR
A
L
L
E
G
H
EN
Y
A
VE

OAKMONT DR

SANDPIPE
R
S
T

PLAIN FIELD DR
BIL
L
NI G
S
A
VE

BERMUDA DUNES AVE
C AVE

POTRERO BLVD

JOSHUA PALMER WAY
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan

CITY OF BANNING
µ 0 200 400 600
Feet

AERIAL BASE MAP
6/18/2021
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510
Banning City Boundary
854

POTRERO BLVD
G
OLD
EN
S
K
Y
C
T

GRANDVIEW
AVE
HIG
HLA
N
D
H
O
M
E
R
D

SAINT ANDREWS WAY

ELDORADO CT

RIVIERA AVE

LORI W AY

AUGUSTA WAY
I 10
S
UN
LA
KES
VIL
LA
G
E
D
R

RAMSEY ST

COUNTRY CLUB DR

SILVER LAKES
AVE
HIGHLA
ND
H
O
ME
R
D
A
P
EX
S
T
A
P
EX
A
VE
LA

COSTA DR

MOODY DR

PINEHURST DR

CHERRY HILL AVE

PLAYER CT
OLYMP

TORREY PINES
RD

LA QUINTA DR

ROLLING HILLS AVE

MERION CT

MAIRFIELD CT
MA
RIA

PALMER DR

SEMINOLE CT
MEAD
O
W
LAKE
LN

RIVIERA AVE
NO
R
TH
W
O
O
D
A
VE

CORRAL CIR

MAIDSTONE
ST
JA
NA
N
C
T

SHOAL CREEK ST

OAKHURST AVE
C

INDIAN WELLS RD

EVELYN DR

PEBBLE BEACH DR

LES LIE
C
T
HIG
H
L
A
N
D
S
P
RIN
G
S
A
VE

BROOKLAWN DR

SALEM CIR

SPRING VIEW DR
B
ORO
WA
Y
CA
S
P

WINGFOOT AVE
CLA
RI C
T

EVERLY DR

SKYVIEW CIR
DA
WN
WA
Y

TWIN HILLS
DR

LINKS AVE

ESSEX WAY

OJAI CIR
S
HIN
N
E
C
O
C
K
D
R

CHRISTY DR

BROOKSIDE DR
BIG
SPRING
DR

OAKMONT DR

SANDPIPE
R
S
T

PLAIN FIELD DR

CHAPPAREL WAY
WES

BERMUDA DUNES AVE

SUN LAKES BLVD
C AVE
I 10
C AVE
I 10
I 10

JOSHUA PALMER WAY
§¨¦10

PROJECT

LOCATION

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
Potrero Creek
Smith Creek
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan

CITY OF BANNING
µ 0 100 200 400 600 800
Feet

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
6/18/2021
Legend
California Geological Survey
Liquefaction Hazard Zone
FEMA SFHA - 1% (100-Year)
Annual Chance Flood Hazard
FEMA SFHA - 0.2% (500-Year)
Annual Chance Flood Hazard
USGS Blue Line Streams
Banning City Boundary
No California Department of Conservation Earthquake
Fault Zones within 1 mile of the project location.

No CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones within
1 mile of the project location.

No Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
Criteria Cells within 1.7 miles of the project
location.

PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510

CITY OF BEAUMONT
855
§¨¦10

POTRERO BLVD
AUTUMN

GOLDEN SKY CT

GRANDVIEW AVE

EL DORADO CT

RIVIERA AVE

LORI WAY

AUGUSTA WAY

Y CLUB DR
I 10
I 10
I 10

SUN LAKES BLVD

RAMSEY ST

SUN LAKES

V LI LAGE DR

RAMSEY ST
SILVER
LAKES
AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD

APEX ST APEX AVE
LA
COSTA
DR

PINEHURST DR

OAK TREE AVE

CHERRY HILL AVE

TORREY PINES
RD

LA QUINTA DR

ROLLING HILLS AVE
SPRIN

MERION CT

MAIRFIELD CT
MARIAN

PALMER DR

SEMINOLE CT
MEA
D
O
W
LA
KE LN

RIVIERA AVE
N
ORTH

WOOD AVE

CORRAL CIR

MAIDSTONE
ST

JANAN CT

SHOAL CREEK ST

OAKHURST AVE
C

INDIAN WELLS RD

EVELYN DR

PEBBLE BEAC

LE SLIE CT
HIG
HLA
N
D SP
RIN
GS A
VE

BROOKLAWN DR

SALEM CIR

SPRING VIEW DR

MARLBORO WAY

LA QUINTA
DR
CASP

CLA RI CT

BEVERLY DR

SKYVIEW CIR
DAWN
WAY

TWIN HILLS DR

LINKS AVE
ESSEX
WAY

SHINNECOCK DR

CHRISTY DR
C

BROOKSIDE DR
BIG
SPRING
DR

OAKMONT DR
SA

NDPIPER ST

PLAIN FIELD DR

CHAPPAREL WAY

BERMUDA DUNES AVE
C AVE
I 10
I 10
I 10
C AVE
I 10
I 10

JOSHUA PALMER WAY

COUNTRY CLUB DR

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
5700
5130
5098
5252
5300
5384
5454
5400 5388
5791
5810
5830
5860
5920
6000
5600
6071
6020
6050
6261
261
5861
5860
300
300
300
5375
5493
256 245
5486
5452
66 164
178
234
316 5394
249
178
200
25 15
5671
5769
5787
5953
409
545 5888
5868
5842
5982
5910
637
600
264
495
4 8
988
739
791
738
649
794
692
5382
5466
5480
5140
5172
320
5120
5474
5494
5500
5590 280
537
519
485
5355
5301 530
5 4
324
5491
5212
5957
5668
60 6272
6052
6071
5801
5205
5178
5120
5176
5190
5204
5211
5183
5099
5085
672 5095
264
4900
5082
5044
5000
4994
4972
430
5078
5200
5550
5458
260
5302
5813
6090
4949
4927 4899
472
629
5037
5641
6000
300
5801
5801
5025
4941 5064
5062
553
493 4944
4956
4908
4956
253
239
303
5554
5542
38 98
193
153
300
237
5372
5272
5206
6119
555
603
639
625
637
649
4923
4935
881
5609
509
5839
5891
5813
5853 5850
5810 5785
5832
5089
4904
4880
4895
293
287
579
567
555
246
268
5403
305
297
5752
5696
663
680
630
723
750
728
658
543
507
304
356
362
378
440
428
410
5462
5448
233
263
5478
5426
5412
136
5312
5550
5531
490
5384
532
5 6
346
5575
5533
152
167
176
274
322
203
5402
5334
5242
5234
5357
5337
5140
5298
5273
5259
5245
5163
5129
5260
5288
5139
5216
5194
5184
5659
5993
563
581
5933
5955
5977
4824
4968
5040
5098
515
81 0
274
5428
5701
5730
5134
4928
5932
571
5 7
735
56245608
607
755
769 760
5484
298
300
5941
5601
5667
5702
164
6269
5771
4840
425
4883
4934
538
4989
545
712
706
682
5368
5396
5448
477
447
5498
5760
6257
6207
5721
5640
300
5700
500
488
4980
4905
4893
4857
627
4794
4730
5484
5345
5325
5477
5463
5421
5080
5112
5168
5182
4812
484
4 8
896
685
709
721
4851
845
809
5286
5217
5148
5218
5232
5127
5113
5073
5041
5009
576
648
812
826
732
708
696
5104
626
648 5019
5085
4884
381
359
517
4823
4919
645
397
398
446
542
471
304
582
61 6
7 05
557
5040
5052
481
4968
5028
318
326
5443
5455
283
208
5408
325
317
227
5528
24 181
153
139
202
5016
663
4847
4836
4872
4908
745
757
4875
5415
238
217
5516
179
201
177
5364
228
5360
5322
5284
47 917
785
773
749
737
612
676
686
700
728
125
286
283
5386
5346
5308
5302
5621
5851
742
798
672
648
681
58915913
5933
5957
5981
5958
5934
5756
5871
489
527
5871
5935
5978
5871
5830
5769
5672
445
437
429
299
482
494
519
339
750
609
623
753
765
646
5578
5592
5512
327
315
374 268
274
398
404
484
512
691
5942
668
654
642
612
693
709
739
5326
5365
5435
5254
5284
5227
525
5 8
272
5231
5149
5536
5564
5515
518
5371
5385
5547
5379
5240
5225
5043
5148
5046
5270 5243
5230
5177
5281
5239
5155
5057
5029
4997
5041
386
408
5117
4975
5063
4934
4912
4956
4921
494
560
641
4977
644
602
5038
364
4993
615
516
665
569
63 6
0 16
588
529
4992
4884
4944
4821
579
505
4767
4783
4815
4831
4860
4848
483
4 9
887
761
714
4916
4892
4931
609
627
663
421
4799
601
4824
673
4863
4899
4911
713
701
5057
770
840
868
4928
744
4859
4943
405 386
422
506
566
578
602
614
280
393
410
554
590
459 464
392
381
458
470
264
5021
4978
5190
5372
5392
5282
5733
5798
5940
6109
6021
6305
5681
5960 5778
300
300
222
277
235
152
166
194
233
217
246
165
214
248
254
5701
5811
5973
429
610
5912
5954
5890
651
5986
788 772
692
637
679
781
772
738
670
5410
5494
5522
466 5456 5451
573
405
5339
5364
5306
5154
5196
5226
5259
5160
5206
5287
5134
5253
5197
5169
5071
646
620 639
5126
5060
5022
4968
4910
403
342
604
653
5049
5013
5001
517
512
4920
4932
489
4 6
920
4932
4968
4992
4917
4809
567
591
615
4810
613
769
905
821
630
854
4871
4907
453
281
269
458
530
591
531
495
362 292
322
392
502
588
4737
525
476
501
507
447
423
387
298
476
387
446
4749
4767
520
4712
4700
399
411
465
477
416
416
440
452
544
4736
650
417
441
482
490
506
526
4713
405
471
4773 656
423
435
447
489
519
483
513
264
4928
4998
5344
5570
5464
5761
5970
290
300
300
300
300
236
276
288
5437
5473
54365422
205
5504
5464
5438
178
134
185 194
5256
5218
67 5687
5723
5831
449
624
5815 5911
5870
5753
5640
5970
724
663
782
762
5428
5508
436
5549
5470
5440 555
5387
5323 5305
5449
5393
5018
503
5 8
098
5126
5275
5244
5162
5246
5267
5141
5262
5112
5016
4950
4862
4971
4905
59 5
3 81
4929
5028
541
5016
5004
5004
4881
4869
4833
651
4762
4746
4824
4884
697
929
893
857
797
725
677
5025
756
720
653
469
413 275
434
518
483
351
301
350
286
340
404
426
464
496
556
4766
4748
4735
429
264
5020
5160 5152
340
4894
5232
5520
5366
5827
5821
6350
5971
5387
265
225
247
283
5574
12 46
112
124
165 158
204
218
262
306 5380
263
217
5633
564
5 7
747
469
5913
5835
5891
5788 5818
5792
5772
5732
5712
5656
623
677
707
723
5956
5926
5912 716
636
534
5 0
354
5501
481
542
5465
445
5344
536
53 6
86 5589
5561
5519
5505
5407
5323
5309
5062
5191
5109
5274
5295
5238
5172
5090
5068
637
4906
473
495
539
593
4965
4953
574
524
4980
4845
4778
4751
483
4 6
860
661
733
869
833
689
5073
594
784
756
684
660
4835
4847
4883
470
435
411
399
375
363
384 452
434
448
572
602
612
4724
662
453
495
612
564
625
6362
6313
638
854 1
724
682
626
6320 669
844 6244
874
6211
6095
668
640
6045
6390
6376
732
712
832
868
6383
6340
6264
738
710
681
695
766
654
709
739
58 5
8 76
6163
6025
552
667
6334
686
6348
709
818
880
6359
856
890
696
598 723
6308
698
674
723
751
6369
6177
6352
6147 6085
6229
6075
60656055
6015 6005
6220
831 6176
6193
6035
6130
850
885 868
48614851
4811
852
4882 4852
4926
4985
4975
4831
4893
482
4 3
945
4805
4936
4894 4976
4965
4955
847
4986
4915
4905
80 4
2 841
4842 4812 856
491
4 6
966
4862 4832 859 4
4906 946
833
752
653
656
63276349
853
871
6310 6329
6279 6247
843
4995
4956
780
540
631 630
894
6339
813
835
891
6332
6322 6357
872 6148 836
4935
4925
4881
4873
4874 4824
823
811
4661 4801 645
579
4780 4756
4800
595
573 4757 4779
601
557
4734
4778
623
5242 5500
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan

CITY OF BANNING
µ 0 200 400 600 800
Feet

PROJECT VICINITY
6/18/2021
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510
Banning City Boundary
856
§¨¦10
Mobile
Home Parks
High Density
Residential-20/
Affordable
Housing
Opportunity
(20-24 du/ac)
General
Commercial
Open Space
- Parks
Medium Density
Residential
(0-10 du/ac)
Open Space
- Parks
High Density
Residential
(11-18 du/ac)
Business Park
Open Space
- Parks
General
Commercial
Specific Plan -
Sun Lakes North
Medium Density Residential
(0-10 du/ac)
Open Space
- Parks
General
Commercial
Low Density
Residential
(0-5 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential
(0-10 du/ac)
Open Space
- Parks
Public Facilities -
Railroad/Interstate
419-140-057

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
Q
UIE
T
CRE

GRANDVIEW AVE

CHAPPAREL

CHERRY HILL AVE

EL DORADO CT

RIVIERA AVE

LORI W A
Y

SPRING VIEW DR

AUGUSTA WAY

COUNTRY CLUB DR
1ST ST

RIVIERA AVE

SUN LAKES BLVD

HIGHLAND

HOME RD

RAMSEY ST

SILVER LAKES AVE

SPRING VIEW
DA
WN
WA
PIN
E
VALLE
Y
R
D

FLAMINGO ST

PINEHURST DR

OAK TREE AVE
TO
R
R
E
Y
PINE
S
R

COLEMAN CREEK D

BANYON ST

LA QUINTA DR

ROLLING HILLS AVE
JA
NA
N
C
T

SEMINOLE CT
MEAD
O
W
LAKE
LN
N
O
R
TH
WO
O
D
A
VE

SHOAL CREEK ST

OAKHURST AVE
ALLE
G
H
E
N
Y
A
VE
B
E
VE
RLY
D
R

EVELYN DR
A
P
EX
A
VE

LES LIE
C
T
HIG
HLA
N
D
S
P
RIN
G
S
A
VE

INDIAN WELLS RD

BROOKLAWN DR

FLORA ST

SALEM CIR
EMORY
A
VE

LESLIE ST
C
OLD
S
P
RIN
G
A
VE
MA
RLB
O
R
O
WA
Y
CLAIR
C
T

SUN LAKES BLVD

SKYVIEW CIR

LELAND ST
S
UN
LA
KE
S
VIL
LA
G
E
D
R

COUNTRY CLUB DR

TWIN HILLS DR

LINKS AVE

ESSEX WAY

LA COSTA DR
A
P
EX
S
T
6TH ST

COMPASS CREEK
C

PEBBLE BEACH DR

BROOKSIDE DR
BIG
SPRING
DR

OAKMONT DR

SANDPIP
E
R
S
T

PLAIN FIELD DR
C AVE

POTRERO BLVD
2ND ST

JOSHUA PALMER WAY
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan

CITY OF BANNING
µ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Feet

GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
6/18/2021
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510
LEGEND
General Plan/Zoning
Business Park
General Commercial
Low Density Residential (0-5 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (0-10 du/ac)
High Density Residential (11-18 du/ac)
High Density Residential-20/Affordable Housing Opportunity (20-24 du/ac) Mobile Home Parks
Open Space - Parks
Public Facilities - Railroad/Interstate
Specific Plan - Sun Lakes North
Banning City Boundary
857
Banning Point Addendum / Consistency Checklist
to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment
No. 5 Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:

City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, California 92220
Applicant:

Sun Lakes Highland, LLC
473 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 200
San Bernardino, California 92408
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
Original: November 2021
Updated: February 10, 2022
858
- This document is designed for double-sided printing - 859
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan i
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 – Introduction and Background................................................................................... 1

1.2 – Proposed Project..................................................................................................... 1

1.3 – Addendum / Consistency Checklist Analysis ........................................................... 1

1.4 – Summary of Results ................................................................................................ 3 2 Project Description................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 – Project Title ........................................................................................................... 10

2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address .......................................................................... 10

2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number...................................................................... 10

2.4 – Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area and Location ..................................... 10

2.5 – Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan................................................................... 10

2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation...................................................................... 11

2.7 – Zoning District ....................................................................................................... 11

2.8 – Banning Point Project Description ......................................................................... 11

2.9 – Surrounding Land Uses......................................................................................... 16

2.10 – Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 17

2.11 – Required Approvals............................................................................................... 17

2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ................................................ 17 3 Determination ........................................................................................................................ 19

3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected ...................................................... 19

3.2 – Determination........................................................................................................ 19 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts..................................................................................... 21

4.1 – Aesthetics.............................................................................................................. 23

4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 25

4.3 – Air Quality.............................................................................................................. 28

4.4 – Biological Resources............................................................................................. 39

4.5 – Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 45

4.6 – Energy................................................................................................................... 47

4.7 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 49

4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................. 53

4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 56

4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................. 59

4.11 – Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 63

4.12 – Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 64

4.13 – Noise..................................................................................................................... 65

4.14 – Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 77

4.15 – Public Services...................................................................................................... 78

4.16 – Recreation............................................................................................................. 80

4.17 – Transportation ....................................................................................................... 81

4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 88

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................ 91

4.20 – Wildfire .................................................................................................................. 94

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................... 95 5 Applicable Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 97 6 References .......................................................................................................................... 110

6.1 – List of Preparers.................................................................................................. 110

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................ 110 860
Table of Contents
ii City of Banning

6.3 – Bibliography............................................................................................................ 110 List of Tables
Table 1 Banning Point Project v. SLVNSP – Consistency Analysis...................................................... 3 Table 2 Warehouse Specifications and Requirements....................................................................... 14 Table 3 Retail Buildings Specifications and Requirements ................................................................ 15 Table 4 Surrounding Land Uses and General Plan and Zoning Designations.................................... 17 Table 5 Air Quality Impacts from Project Construction....................................................................... 30 Table 6 Air Quality Impacts from Project Operation ........................................................................... 30 Table 7 Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Construction ..................................... 33 Table 8 Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Operation.......................................... 33 Table 9 Project GHG Emissions ........................................................................................................ 54 Table 10 Construction - Exterior Noise Levels ................................................................................... 70 Table 11 Construction – Interior Noise Impacts ................................................................................ 70 Table 12 Operational Noise Levels .................................................................................................... 72 Table 13 Operational Noise Level Compliance .................................................................................. 72 Table 14 Noise Impact Significance Criteria ...................................................................................... 73 Table 15 Operational Noise Level Increase ....................................................................................... 73 Table 16 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Impacts ......................................................................... 74 Table 17 Year 2040 Traffic Noise Impacts ......................................................................................... 75 Table 18 Construction Vibration Impacts ........................................................................................... 76 Table 19 Project Trip Generation vs. PEIR Estimate.......................................................................... 82 Table 20 Project Employment Estimate ............................................................................................. 85 Table 21 Project VMT Per Employee................................................................................................. 86 Table 22 VMT Per Employee Comparison......................................................................................... 86 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Specific Plan Location Map ................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2 Specific Plan Area Map......................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................. 12 Exhibit 4 Modeled Source Area Map.................................................................................................. 35 Exhibit 5 Sensitive Receptor Locations.............................................................................................. 37 Exhibit 6: Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations................................................................................... 69 Exhibit 7: Operational Noise Source Locations .................................................................................. 71 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, & Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Appendix B Traffic Assessment
Appendix C Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Appendix D Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
861
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan iii EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
862
863
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 1
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
1 Introduction

1.1 – Introduction and Background
This Addendum / Consistency Checklist (“Addendum”), its appendices, and related supporting environmental documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the City of Banning’s (“City”) Environmental Impact Report (“Program EIR” or “PEIR”, Clearinghouse No. 2020029074) prepared for Amendment Number 5 (No. 5) to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (“SLVNSP”) remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Banning Point development (“Project” or “proposed Project”), or whether additional documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.).

The City approved Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP in December 2020, which updated SLVNSP’s Land Use Plan from Retail Commercial (Auto Dealer) to Business Park & Warehouse (BW), Office & Professional (OP), and Retail & Service (RS). Amendment No. 5 revised the permitted land uses, development standards (including maximum building height, setbacks, open space, landscaping, parking, and signage), design guidelines for development, and administration and implementation provisions of the SLVNSP. The City is the Lead Agency for the SLVNSP under CEQA, and the City prepared the PEIR as the CEQA compliance document for SLVNSP Amendment No 5. The PEIR concluded that Amendment No. 5 had the potential to result in a net increase of building square footage in the SLVNSP planning area and found that certain air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic impacts of Amendment No. 5 would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation and regulatory compliance. The PEIR was certified by the City Council on December 8, 2020 (Ordinance 1571 for Zone Change 20-3501).

1.2 – Proposed Project
The Project applicant proposes warehouse/office and retail commercial development within the SLVNSP area. The City, as the Lead Agency, must determine if the Project complies with the SLVNSP and its PEIR and what type of CEQA compliance document, if any, must be prepared. The proposed Project includes development of a 619,959 square foot warehouse and development of six commercialretail buildings ranging in size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet (34,000 total square feet) along with associated utility, parking, roadway, and landscaping improvements. The location of the Project site is shown in Exhibit 1 (Specific Plan Location Map), and the SLVNSP area is shown in Exhibit 2 (SLVNSP Area Map).

1.3 – Addendum / Consistency Checklist Analysis
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). This Addendum evaluates the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the PEIR to determine whether any of the conditions described in Guidelines § 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred. The PEIR is available for review at the City’s Planning Department, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220.

CEQA Guidelines § 15164(a) provides that the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Subsection (c) further provides that an “addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final 864
Introduction
2 City of Banning
EIR,” and subsection (e) states that a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included” in the addendum, the agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record.

CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(2) provides that “if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR will be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR” and that “[w]hether a later activity is within the scope of a Program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.” Subsection (c)(4) further provides that “[w]here the later activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the Program EIR.”
Finally, CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (cross referenced by §§ 15164 and 15168) provides that (a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Per the above, this Addendum functions as both an “addendum” and a “written checklist,” as called for in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15164(a) and 15168(c)(4). As such, this Addendum analyzes the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects disclosed in the PEIR consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15162.
865
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 3
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
As detailed in this Addendum, no further CEQA review is required for the Project beyond the PEIR and this Addendum because (1) the Project will not have new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the PEIR, (2) all applicable mitigation measures in the PEIR will be incorporated into the Project’s approval, and (3) the Project will not require any new mitigation measures.

This Addendum and its supporting documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required prior to approval of the Project.

1.4 – Summary of Results
The analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.21 of this Addendum conclude that the Project reflects minor changes to the project described in the certified PEIR (i.e., the SLVNSP). Table 1 (Banning Point Project v. SLVNSP - Consistency Analysis) evaluates the consistency of the Project with the development identified in the PEIR and also shows that the Project is equal to or less intense than what was planned.

Table 1
Banning Point Project v. SLVNSP – Consistency Analysis
Characteristic
SLVNSP Designation Banning Point Project
BW RS Warehouse Retail Consistent?
Land Use Business &
Warehouse
Retail &
Service
Warehouse Retail and
Restaurant Pads
Yes
Allowed Uses1 Warehouses Retail and
restaurants
Warehouse Retail and
Restaurants
Yes
Acres 30.22 6.83 30.22 6.83 Yes
FAR (maximum) 0.55 0.60 0.47 0.11 Yes
Allowed Area
(SF)2
877,298 37,189 619,959 34,000 Yes
Landscaping Setback (feet)
Sun Lakes Blvd. NA 20 NA 20 Yes
North SP
Boundary
10 NA 10 NA Yes
West SP
Boundary
10 10 10 10 Yes
Building Setback (feet)
Sun Lakes Blvd. NA 25 NA +100 Yes
North SP
Boundary
20 NA +120 NA Yes
West SP
Boundary
20 10 50 +50 Yes
Other Guidelines
Interior Lot Line 20 0 NA NA NA
Building Height3
(feet, maximum)
55 35 47.5 20.5 Yes
Parking4 360 146 402 289 Yes
Landscaping 15.0%
Zoning Code Chapter 17.32

16.2%
Will be built per Code
Yes
Lighting Zoning Code Sect 17.12.170 Will be built per Code Yes Walls and
Fences5
Zoning Code Sect 17.24.080 Will be built per Code
and SLVNSP
Yes
Signs Zoning Code Chapter 17.36 Will be built per Code Yes Sources: Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Tables 1 and 2 (11-4-20), PEIR (10-28-20), Banning Point Conceptual Plan dated 9-29-20, Revised Landscape Plan (8-4-21), and revised Project Plans (August 2021). 866
Introduction
4 City of Banning
NOTES
BW Business & Warehouse District
FAR Floor Area Ratio (building area/site area)
NA Not Applicable
RS Retail & Service District
SF Square Feet
SLVNSP Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan
SP Specific Plan
1 SLVNSP Table 1, Allowable Land Uses
2 SP numbers based on industrial park and commercial retail uses evaluated in PEIR 3 Architectural projections and focal elements may exceed the height limit up to 25 percent. 4 Per Zoning Code Chapter 17.28 based on building type and square footage 5 Per Code except walls and fences may exceed the maximum height specified in the Banning Zoning Code to satisfy the screening requirements of the SLVNSP Design Guidelines.

There are no substantial changes resulting from the Project or the circumstances in which the Project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the PEIR. The Project does not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As such, this Addendum analysis is the appropriate method of CEQA compliance for the Project. 867
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 5
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 1
Specific Plan Location Map
868
Introduction
6 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
869
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 7
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 2
Specific Plan Area Map
870
Introduction
8 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
871
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 9
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
872
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 10
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
2 Project Description

2.1 – Project Title
Banning Point

2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, California 92220

2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number
Adam Rush, Community Development Director
951-922-3131

2.4 – Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area and Location The SLVNSP area is located just north of Sun Lakes Boulevard and between Sun Lakes Village Drive and Silver Lake Avenue in the City of Banning, California (See Exhibit 1). The SLVNSP Area is approximately 47.11 acres and is divided into three districts: a 30.22-acre Business Park & Warehouse (BW) district in the northwest portion of the plan area, a 10.06-acre Office & Professional (OP) district in the northeast portion of the plan area, and a 6.83-acre Retail & Service (RS) district in the southwest portion of the plan area along Sun Lakes Boulevard (See Exhibit 2). The SLVNSP area is comprised of a single contiguous parcel.
• Latitude 33° 55’ 26.92” North, Longitude 116° 56’ 27.82” West • APN: 419-140-057

2.5 – Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan
The SLVNSP is a specific plan under state planning law and is one of several policy and regulatory tools used by the City to implement the City’s General Plan, which specifically incorporates the SLVNSP under a Specific Plan Overlay. The SLVNSP implements the General Plan through the establishment of more detailed policies, regulations, and actions specifically focused on the SLVNSP area. The SLVNSP generally provides for the use and focused development policies for properties within the

47.11-acre plan area. The Business & Warehouse District is the largest district under the SLVNSP at approximately 30.22 acres. It is located in the northwestern portion of the plan area, adjacent to the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Interstate-10 Freeway. The Office & Professional District is approximately 10.06 acres and is located in the east part of the plan area adjacent to an assisted living facility and residential units designed on smaller lots that are part of the Sun Lakes Country Club active adult/golf course community. The allowable land uses in this district are intended to be of a nature that limits impacts on the existing adjacent sensitive uses. The Office & Professional District also creates a buffer between its adjacent uses and development within the Business & Warehouse District. The Retail & Service District is the smallest district at approximately

6.83 acres. It is located on the southern edge of the plan area adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard. The land use objectives for this district are to provide convenient shopping and neighborhood-related 873
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 11
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
services to meet the daily needs of nearby residents, create high quality development adjacent to the Sun Lakes Boulevard frontage, and screen development within the Business & Warehouse District. The SLVNSP also provides for improvements to the circulation system, increased on-street parking, streetscape improvements, and enhanced development standards and design guidelines.

At the time the SLVNSP was prepared, there were no land use entitlements being sought. The following development assumptions for the SLVNSP planning area were assumed and analyzed in the PEIR:
• 877,298 square feet (sf) of Industrial Park
• 52,065 sf of Medical Office
• 37,189 sf of Retail Use

2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation
Business Park with Specific Plan Overlay
General Commercial with Specific Plan Overlay

2.7 – Zoning District
Specific Plan:

Business & Warehouse District
Retail & Service District
Office & Professional District

2.8 – Banning Point Project Description
Proposed Development Plan
The proposed Project includes construction of an approximately 619,959-square foot high-cube warehouse and development of six retail commercial buildings totaling approximately 34,000 square feet (See Exhibit 3, Site Plan). A Tentative Parcel Map, which would divide the site into three parcels, has been submitted as part of the Project application. Parcel 1, located on the southern part of the Project site, would accommodate six retail buildings. Parcel 2, located on the northern part of the site, would include the industrial warehouse building. Parcel 3, located on the eastern part of the site, is not proposed for development at this time, but an access road would be installed. The impacts associated with this access road are addressed in this Addendum. The following provides more details about each component of the Project site.

Industrial Warehouse. The industrial warehouse would be developed on the northern portion of the site that consists of 30.22 acres. The warehouse building would include approximately 619,959 square feet of high-cube warehouse space, with approximately 154,990 square feet dedicated to high-cube cold storage use (or 25% of floor area), a permitted use under the SLVNSP, and approximately 10,000 square feet dedicated to office uses; potential locations for office space are identified at the corners of the building. Approximately Fifty-seven (57) truck dock doors would be located along the northern side of the building and 57 dock doors would be located along the southern side. Parking spaces to accommodate trucks would be located in the vicinity of the truck dock doors. Car parking 874
Project Description
12 City of Banning
Exhibit 3
Site Plan
875
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 13
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
876
Project Description
14 City of Banning
would be generally located east and west of the building. The warehouse building would be single-story and approximately 47.5 feet tall. The northern portion of the site that would include the warehouse development would include approximately 112,998 square feet of landscaping, comprising approximately 16.23 percent of the site area. The warehouse development will provide approximately 391 standard parking stalls and 11 ADA accessible stalls (402 total stalls). The proposed industrial warehouse building would have a total of approximately 114 dock doors, 153 truck trailer parking stalls, 9 short term bicycle parking stalls, and 9 long-term bicycle parking stalls. Table 2 (Warehouse Specifications and Requirements) provides a summary of the warehouse specifications as well as relevant development provisions.

Although the industrial warehouse building is intended to be used as an industrial warehouse, an end user has not been identified at this time. However, the applicant requests approval of a 24 hours per day/7 days per week operational schedule to allow for flexibility for future tenants. This Addendum and accompanying technical appendices evaluate all Project impacts based upon the conservative, worstcase assumption that the Project will operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week.

Table 2
Warehouse Specifications and Requirements
Development Standards Industrial
Warehouse Building
Development
Standard
Proposed
Warehouse1
Lot Size 10,000 SF 1,316,349 SF
Lot Width 70 feet 1,270 feet
Lot Depth 100 feet 876 feet
Building Height 55 feet 47’-6”
Building Setbacks:

Front
Side
Rear
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
185 feet
70 feet
185 feet
Building Coverage 55% 47%
Landscape Coverage 15% of lot minus
building area 16.23%
Fence/Wall Height 8 feet Fence – 8 feet
Wall – 14 feet
Parking Requirements
Office – 1 space per 300 s.f. 34 40
Warehouse Parking – 22 spaces plus
1 space per 2,000 s.f. over 20k s.f. 317 362
1 NOTE: all numerical values are approximate
The industrial warehouse building would be constructed with concrete tilt-up walls with painted and scored accents. The design provides glazing and color variation along the length of the industrial warehouse building. The exterior elevations uses a combination of materials and colors. The warehouse building will use paint by Sherwin-Williams with colors Extra White with Gray Screen, Software, and Cyberspace with trims of Heartthrob between the gray panels. There are aluminum windows and door frames with tempered glazing in a blue reflective color that will be located on the wall panels, the building corners, and the four potential office areas. There are Metal Canopies with Pure White and clear 877
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 15
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
Anodized Mullions to accent the building. The proposed 14-foot concrete tilt-up walls will screen the truck yards and the colors will match the paint and color variations of the warehouse building.

Retail Buildings. The retail commercial building would be developed on the southern portion of the site that consists of 6.83 acres. The proposed retail commercial buildings range in size from approximately 1,400 square feet to 8,400 square feet. Building 1 will include a coffee or similar restaurant with a drivethru and the remaining five buildings will be for retail and/or restaurant uses. The southern portion of the Project site would be developed with the retail commercial buildings and will include approximately 104,602 square feet of landscaping, comprising approximately 34.9 percent of the site area. The retail commercial development will provide approximately 276 standard parking stalls and 13 ADA accessible stalls (289 total stalls). Table 3 (Retail Buildings Specifications and Requirements) provides a summary the retail buildings specifications as well as relevant development provisions.

The main colors of the retail buildings will be Sherwin-Williams Extra White with accent colors of White Brick, Warm Brick, and Metal Siding. The storefront aluminum windows and door framing will use a blue reflective window glazing and is also located on the wall panels and the building corners. There are Pure White Metal Canopies with clear Anodized Mullions to provide distinction accents to the buildings.

Table 3
Retail Buildings Specifications and Requirements
Development Standards Retail
and Restaurant Buildings Required
Proposed Retail
Buildings
Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 297,492 s.f.

Lot Width 60 feet 1,300 feet
Lot Depth 100 feet 200 feet
Building Height 35 feet 20’ – 6”
Building Setbacks:

Front
Side
Rear
0 feet
20 feet
20 feet
100 feet
80 feet
30 feet
Building Coverage 55% 11.4%
Landscape Coverage 15% of lot
minus parking
area

34.9%
Fence/Wall Height 6 feet N/A
Parking Requirements
Drive Thru – 1 space per 100 s.f. 16 16
Retail – 1 space per 250 s.f. 130 273
1 NOTE: all numerical values are approximate
878
Project Description
16 City of Banning
Access and Circulation
The Project has one driveway on Sun Lakes Village Drive and two driveways on Sun Lakes Boulevard.

All semi-truck access will be limited to the driveway on Sun Lakes Village Drive, and the two Sun Lakes Boulevard driveways will serve the commercial/retail portion of the Project.

The westerly Sun Lakes Boulevard driveway will be the main retail driveway, which will be signalized, allow full access, and be aligned with existing Country Club Drive. The easterly driveway on Sun Lakes Boulevard will be restricted to right-in/right-out access, which will be controlled by a raised median.

Onsite circulation will include a minimum 40-foot drive aisle around the perimeter of the business/warehouse building. A 26-foot wide emergency/fire access road will be provided on the north side of the commercial/retail portion.

Grading and Drainage
The Project’s grading plan indicates the site will require approximately 120,663 cubic yards of cut and 120,663 cubic yards of fill, including over-excavation and shrinkage, so earthwork will be balanced onsite. The Project site is covered by the Master Drainage Plan for the City of Banning (“Drainage Plan”), prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”) in 1975. The Project site currently drains south toward to Sun Lakes Boulevard. The portion of the site which drains to Sun Lakes Boulevard sheet flows to the existing storm drain system which then conveys the flows to Smith Creek to the east. The conceptual site plan for the Project (Exhibit 3) indicates a detention basin will be located in the southeast corner of the site which will provide long-term onsite and downstream flood protection. The basin will be designed to store runoff from rainfall events up to and including the 100-year, 3-hour duration event. Post development peak urban runoff discharge rates would not exceed pre-development peak urban runoff discharge rates (RPG 2021a, b).

Utilities
Existing utilities include a 12-inch potable water main and a 12-inch sewer main within Sun Lakes Boulevard. The Project site naturally flows to storm drains at the southwest and southeast corners of the site; stormwater is then conveyed to Smith Creek to the east or Potrero Creek to the west (RPG 2021b). Existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications utilities beneath Sun Lakes Boulevard will serve the Project via lateral connections.

Project Phasing and Construction Scheduling
The Project is planned in two phases over a period of 18-22 months. Phase 1 will consist of the industrial building with construction projected to begin in early 2022 and completed by the end of 2022. Phase 2 will consist of the retail buildings to start construction in early 2023 and be completed by late 2023.

2.9 – Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed Project is bounded on the north by railroad tracks, Interstate-10 (I-10), and commercial uses further north. Residential uses are located to the east, and commercial and industrial uses to the west. Sun Lakes Boulevard borders the site to the south, with residential uses further south.

Surrounding uses are summarized in Table 4 (Surrounding Land Uses and General Plan and Zoning Designations) below and as shown in Exhibit 2.
879
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 17
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
Table 4
Surrounding Land Uses and General Plan and Zoning Designations Direction General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land Use Project
Site
Business Park with Specific Plan
Overlay and General
Commercial with Specific Plan
Overlay
Specific Plan: Business
& Warehouse, Office &
Professional, and Retail
& Service
Vacant Land
North Public Facilities/ Rights-of-Way N/A Interstate-10 UPRR & SPR Railroads
South Public Facilities/ Rights-of-Way
Medium Density Residential
Sun Lakes Specific
Plan
Sun Lakes Boulevard
Single-Family Residences
East
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing Opportunity
Sun Lakes Specific
Plan
Senior Apartments
Single-Family Residences
West General Commercial (with
Specific Plan Overlay)
Sun Lakes Specific
Plan
Commercial Shopping
Center

2.10 – Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently undeveloped but is surrounded on all sides by industrial, commercial, and residential development, as well as roadway and highway features. The site is comprised of mostly dirt and non-native weeds/ruderal vegetation that has little value as natural habitat, although there are a number of trees along the southern and southeastern boundaries of the site. The site is relatively flat and slopes slightly from northwest to southeast with an elevation ranging between approximately 2,565 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the northwest corner of the site to 2,545 feet AMSL on the southeast side of the site. There are no on-site water features indicative of potential riparian habitat or wetlands. The site is located just east of the Banning Pass and has views of Mt. San Gorgonio and the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Jacinto mountains to the south. Air quality can be poor at times due to high winds and transport of air pollutants out of the Los Angeles Basin and the San Bernardino Valley to the west. The site was part of the Stewart Ranch, but no improvements from the ranch remain. Residential uses of the Sun Lakes Village community are located to the south (across Sun Lakes Boulevard) with a business park to the west and various residential neighborhoods to the east. Railroad tracks and the I-10 Freeway are located just north of the site and scattered residential uses are located further to the north across the freeway from the Project site.

2.11 – Required Approvals
The Project would require the following approvals:
• Design Review
• Tentative Parcel Map

2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
• None
880
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 18
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
881
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 19
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
3 Determination

3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected
The environmental categories checked below were identified in the SLVNSP PEIR as being a ‘Potentially Significant Impact,’ and the following sections of this Addendum will identify to what degree the proposed Project contributes to these previously identified significant impacts. □ Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions □
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□
Hydrology / Water
Quality Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population / Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation Transportation/Traffic □
Tribal Cultural
Resources
□
Utilities / Service
Systems □ Wildfire □
Mandatory Findings of
Significance

3.2 – Determination
□
The Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□
Although the 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. □
The Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□
The 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.

The Project could have a significant effect on the environment, but all of its potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed 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. As such, no further environmental documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required.
882
Determination
20 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
883
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 21
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the environmental categories in terms of any changed conditions from the approved SLVNSP to the proposed Project (e.g., project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance) that may produce a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). As such, the Addendum’s checklist analysis uses the standard environmental categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed in Guidelines § 15162(a).

Mitigation measures identified in the PEIR and applicable to the proposed Project are discussed under each environmental section and are listed in Section 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures.

As discussed in the following sections, the proposed Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified by the PEIR.

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES (COLUMNS) Effect Not Examined in Program EIR?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(1), this column indicates whether the Project would have effects that were not previously examined by the PEIR, which new effects could necessitate subsequent CEQA review.

Conclusion in Program EIR?
This column summarizes the conclusion of the SLVNSP PEIR concerning the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether any changes represented by the proposed Project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the PEIR or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the PEIR was certified, shows any of the following:
884
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
22 City of Banning
(A) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous PEIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous PEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the PEIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “No,” and no subsequent environmental review would be required.

DISCUSSION FOLLOWING CHECKLIST EVALUATION
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers regarding the proposed Project in relation to SLVNSP PEIR. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the Project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Applicable mitigation measures from the PEIR that apply to the proposed Project are listed under each environmental category.

Conclusion
Each section ends with a summary of the conclusion of the preceding analysis. 885
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 23
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.1 – Aesthetics
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within view from
a state scenic highway?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character
or quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic quality?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Scenic Vistas. The SLVNSP and surrounding areas contain no designated scenic vistas although San Gorgonio Mountain and the San Bernardino Mountains are visible to the north and northeast. The surrounding lands contain largely suburban scale developed land uses and neighborhoods. The SLVNSP PEIR determined the SLVNSP would have less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required. Since the proposed Project would be developed under the SLVNSP, it would have similar less-than-significant impacts to scenic vistas.
886
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
24 City of Banning
(b) Visual Resources within a State Scenic Highway. There are no roadways in the SLVNSP area that are designated or eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway or locally designated scenic route.

In addition, the SLVNSP area contains no visual resources or historic resources. Therefore, any development that implements the SLVNSP, such as the Project, would have no impacts on scenic resources.
(c) Degrade Existing Visual Character. The surrounding area is largely built out with industrial, office, commercial, and residential uses. In addition, there is undeveloped land in the Project vicinity that is designated for future development with similar uses. The PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP does not significantly change the existing development pattern and appearance of the surrounding area, although it would allow the area to develop with higher intensity of uses. The PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP would actually improve the visual quality and character of the area by adding an upgraded use to valuable undeveloped land along a major interstate. The SLVNSP implements development standards, design guidelines, and landscaping and streetscape requirements to enhance the visual quality of the planning area and surrounding area. With regard to building height, the SLVNSP does not change existing regulations. The PEIR determined impacts to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required.

The proposed Project would be developed consistent with the design and development requirements of the SLVNSP. Thus, the size and scale of the proposed buildings are consistent with the surrounding area. The overall appearance of new buildings within the Project would be consistent with the scale and size allowed under the SLVNSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
(d) Light and Glare. The SLVNSP area and surrounding areas currently have high ambient levels of night lighting for private property security and street lighting. The PEIR found that although the level of development would increase through implementation of the SLVNSP, light and glare affecting residences and other light-sensitive uses was expected to be similar to current levels since City regulations regarding lighting would continue to apply. Therefore, the Project’s light and glare impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Conclusion. As analyzed in the PEIR, the proposed Project would comply with the City’s night-time light regulation and would thus have less than significant impacts. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
887
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 25
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.2 – 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 adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
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 nonagricultural use?
No No Impact No No No
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No No Impact No No No
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code section
4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code
section 51104 (g))?
No No Impact No No No
888
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
26 City of Banning
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
d) Result in loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
No No Impact No No No
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Designated Farmland. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, which is included in Appendix A of the PEIR, according to the Riverside County Parcel Report obtained from the Map My County website on January 17, 2020, the site is identified as Farmland of Local Importance and Urban-Built Up Land.

As such, the site does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Project has no potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non‐agricultural use and no impact would occur in this regard.
(b) Williamson Act. According to the Riverside County Parcel Report for the Project, the site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. The Project site is designated as Business Park (with Specific Plan Overlay) and General Commercial (with Specific Plan Overlay). There is no agricultural zoning or uses in close proximity to the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
(c) Forest Zoning. The current General Plan land use designations are Business Park with Specific Plan Overlay and General Commercial with Specific Plan Overlay. The Specific Plan zoning designations are Business & Warehouse, Office & Professional, and Retail & Service. The Project site does not contain any forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production, nor are any forest lands or timberlands located on or nearby the Project site. Because no lands on the Project site are zoned for forestland or timberland, the Project has no potential to impact such zoning. No impact would occur.
(d) Loss of Forestland. The Project site and surrounding properties do not contain forest lands, are not zoned for forest lands, nor are they identified as containing forest resources by the General Plan.

Because forest land is not present on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, the 889
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 27
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
(e) Conversion of Land. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifies the Project site as Farmland of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing or has the capability of production; but does not meet the criteria of Prime, Statewide or Unique Farmland.

The site can be considered to be Fallow Agricultural Land. The description of this habitat and vegetation communities is based on the definitions found in MSHCP Section 2.1.3 and A Manual of California Vegetation: Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Fallow Agricultural Land includes fallow fields that have been recently disked, plowed, or are no longer used to produce crops and are slowly being encroached by non-native herbaceous plant species. In some cases, native annual wildflowers become established in fallow agricultural lands. As such, the Project site is not currently providing active agricultural land of use to the local economy.

In addition, the Project site has been planned for industrial, business park, and commercial uses by the General Plan since 1983 and this type of development has been anticipated for the Project site.

Therefore, no unanticipated impact would occur.

Conclusion. There are no agricultural or forest related resources in or near the Project area that would be impacted. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.

As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 890
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
28 City of Banning

4.3 – Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
No Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
Project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
No Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely
affecting a substantial
number of people?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Conflict with AQMP. The SLVNSP area is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and subject to the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a proposed project's consistency with the 2016 AQMP is assessed under two criteria:
• Criterion 1. Would the proposed project be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP? Growth forecasts and associated assumptions are included in the 2016 AQMP, which are designed to achieve attainment for all criteria air pollutants within the Basin while still accommodating growth in the region. Projects that are consistent with the AQMP growth assumptions would not interfere with attainment of air quality standards because their growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. 891
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 29
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
• Criterion 2. Would the proposed project increase the frequency or severity of a violation of air quality standards or cause a new violation? This refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (page D-3, SCAQMD 2003).

The PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP was inconsistent with the 2016 AQMP under both of SCAQMD's criteria because the SLVNSP would result in exceedances of SCAQMD's daily pollutant emissions thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) during construction and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) during construction and long-term operation, and this would occur even with implementation of the PEIR's mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-7.

The Project will include less square footage than what was approved in the SLVNSP. As discussed in Checklist Question 4.3(b) below and detailed in the Project's air quality report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021a, updated February 2022)(Appendix A), the Project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's daily pollutant emissions thresholds, either during construction or long-term operation. As such, the Project, unlike the SLVNSP project, will be consistent with the 2016 AQMP, and the Project impacts under this threshold will be less than significant.
(b) Cumulative Increase in Air Pollution. The South Coast Air Basin is in "non-attainment" status for several criteria pollutants. SCAQMD has developed regional and localized significance thresholds for regulated pollutants. Any project in the South Coast Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated regional or localized significance thresholds would be considered to contribute to a projected air quality violation.

A detailed air quality assessment was prepared for the PEIR, which evaluated the development of 877,298 square feet of industrial park use and 37,189 square feet of commercial retail use within the area bounded by the currently proposed Project. There were also medical office uses evaluated in the EIR, but this portion of the SLVNSP is east and outside of the proposed Project boundary.

As noted, a detailed air quality and greenhouse gas report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021a, updated February 2022)(Appendix A) has been prepared for the proposed Project, which analyzes 619,959 square feet of warehousing space and 34,000 square feet of retail and fast-food commercial uses. This air quality report assumed up to a quarter of the warehouse space would be used for cold storage and the rest for high-cube logistics warehousing. This report assumed the commercial space along Sun Lakes Boulevard would be similar to that examined in the PEIR with the addition of a drive-through coffee establishment.

Construction-Related Impacts
The PEIR assumed that construction of the SLVNSP would occur over a 15-month period once construction commenced and concluded that construction-related emissions impacts would be significant for VOC emissions even with mitigation. As a result, the PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP would result in significant unavoidable project construction-related impacts and cumulatively considerable impacts related to construction.

The Project is planned in two phases over a period of 18-22 months. Phase 1 will consist of the industrial building with construction projected to begin in early 2022 and completed by the end of 2022. Phase 2 will consist of the retail buildings to start construction in early 2023 and be completed by late 2023.

Table 5 (Air Quality Impacts from Project Construction) shows the estimated “worst case” maximum daily emissions from Project construction compared to the SCAQMD thresholds. Table 5 demonstrates 892
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
30 City of Banning
that construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds, so unlike the SLVNSP project, this impact is less than significant. Although no Project-specific mitigation is required, during construction, the Project will still implement PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 regarding painting and AQ-2 regarding grading, as well as SCAQMD construction-related regulations, such as for dust control.

Table 5
Air Quality Impacts from Project Construction
Pollutant
Characteristics
Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 19.30 61.52 64.23 0.17 14.13 6.85 SCAQMD Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: Table 3, UR 2021a
1 Emission results rounded off from UR 2021 report
Long-Term Operation
The PEIR concluded that the long-term operational emissions impacts of the SLVNSP would be significant only for NOx as a result of vehicle traffic generation, even with the PEIR's mitigation measures AQ-3 through AQ-6. As a result, the PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP would result in significant unavoidable impacts and cumulatively considerable impacts related to long-term operation.

As detailed in the Project's air quality report, the Project's long-term operational emissions are anticipated to be less than significant for all SCAQMD thresholds. Table 6 (Air Quality Impacts from Project Operation) shows the estimated “worst case” maximum daily emissions from the Project's longterm operations compared to the SCAQMD thresholds. Table 6 also shows the air pollutant emissions estimated from the PEIR for the portion of the SLVNSP within the Project area.

Table 6
Air Quality Impacts from Project Operation
Total Maximum
Daily Emissions
Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
PEIR Estimate
(for Project area)

29.1 36.8 107.0 0.4 33.6 9.4
Proposed Project 28.6 49.1 161.9 0.5 48.9 13.7
SCAQMD Thresholds 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: Tables 1 and 5, UR 2021a
1 Emission results rounded off from UR 2021 report
Although no Project-specific mitigation is required, during operation, the Project will still implement EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-3 regarding electrical hookups at loading docks, AQ-4 regarding idling limits, AQ-5 requiring electric or natural gas “yard” equipment, and AQ-6 regarding electric vehicle charging stations.

It should also be noted that the Project will eventually have to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305 regarding truck-related warehouse emissions. In May 2021, the SCAQMD adopted the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule which seeks to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions produced by light- and heavy-duty trucks and tractor-trailers (mainly diesel) traveling to and from warehouses by 893
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 31
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
regulating the owners and operators of warehouse facilities considered to be the “indirect source” of those emissions. Rule 2305 implements SCAQMD’s Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program and applies to owners and operators of existing and new warehouses within the South Coast Air Basin. Warehouse operators must earn a specific number of points (called WAIRE Points) through emissions-reducing activities or payment of mitigation fees to offset the number of truck trips to and from warehouses under their control. Warehouse operators incur their WAIRE Points obligations on a weighted basis, with, until 2026, larger obligations for larger warehouse facilities, and for warehouses hosting larger vehicles (e.g., tractors or tractor-trailers). Rule 2305 will be phased in over three years, applying to larger warehouses first. The Initial Compliance Period begins on January 1, 2022 for warehouses 250,000 square feet or more, on January 1, 2023 for warehouses 150,000 feet or more, and on January 1, 2024 for warehouses 100,000 square feet or more. Although it is likely that compliance with Rule 2305 will decrease the Project’s emissions, in order to prepare a more conservative analysis, no reductions in emissions are assumed. While the PEIR concludes that the SLVNSP's construction and operational impacts are significant and unavoidable, the Project's impacts are not significant and thus less than the impacts specified in the PEIR.

Mitigation Measures
The PEIR recommended the following mitigation measures which will be implemented during grading, construction, and operation of the warehouse portion of the Project:

Grading/Construction
AQ-1 Use Low VOC Paint. To reduce VOC emissions associated with architectural coating, the project designer and contractor shall reduce the use of paints and solvents by utilizing precoated materials (e.g., bathroom stall dividers, metal awnings), materials that do not require painting, and require coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113 to be utilized. The construction contractor shall be required to utilize “Super Compliant” VOC paints, which are defined in SCAQMD’s Rule 1113. Construction specifications shall be included in building specifications that assure these requirements are implemented. The specifications for each implementing the development project shall be reviewed by the City of Banning’s Building and Safety Division for compliance with this mitigation measure prior to issuance of a building permit.

AQ-2 Grading Limitations. During the City’s review process for applications under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall conduct or shall have conducted modeling of the regional and the localized emissions (NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) associated with the maximum daily grading activities estimated for the proposed individual developments one acre or larger. If the modeling shows that emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for those emissions, the maximum daily grading activities of the proposed development shall be limited to the extent that could occur without resulting in emissions in excess of SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for those emissions. For implementing projects within the Specific Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a focused project level air quality assessment that includes the modeling of localized on-site emissions associated with daily grading activities anticipated for the proposed development.

Operation
AQ-3 Electrical Hookups for Loading Docks. Trucks accessing the Project site may have auxiliary power units (APU) and/or transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Therefore, electrical hookups shall be installed at all loading docks, and to reduce/replace APU use while trucks 894
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
32 City of Banning
are parked along the docks, to allow trucks with APU and/or TRUs with electric standby capabilities to plug in when TRUs are in use to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions. The City shall verify electrical hookups have been installed prior to occupancy.

AQ-4 Idling Limits. All facilities shall post signs informing users of requirements limiting idling to five minutes or less pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485 in order to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions. No overnight/longterm parking will be allowed. The City shall verify signage has been installed prior to occupancy.

AQ-5 Electric or Natural Gas Service Equipment. Service equipment (i.e., yard hostlers and forklifts) used within the site shall be electric or compressed natural gas powered to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions.

AQ-6 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Prior to approval of implementing commercial plot plan(s) within the Project the City of Banning Planning Division shall ensure that the plot plan(s) include a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. The electric vehicle charging stations also shall be depicted on building plans for implementing development within Project site. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed commercial land uses within the Project site, the City of Banning Building and Safety Department shall ensure that a minimum of three electric vehicle charging stations have been installed on-site.

In addition to these six measures, the PEIR recommended Mitigation Measure (“MM”) AQ-7 that required the preparation of a “Health Risk Assessment (HRA) during the City’s review process for any future development applications under the Specific Plan that proposes a warehouse or distribution project.” AQ-7 required that the (warehouse) applicant “shall submit a Health Risk Assessment that is prepared pursuant to the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis by the SCAQMD. If the modeling showed that emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for those emissions, …performance-based measures shall be required in order reduce emissions to less than significant levels”. Measure AQ-7 was to be completed as part of the City’s review process. To comply with that measure, the air quality report for the Project includes an HRA, and the results are presented in SubSection (c) below. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 from the PEIR, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and no additional Project-specific mitigation is required. However, the PEIR concluded that air quality impacts would be significant, and thus would be cumulatively considerable, but the preceding analysis demonstrates that the air quality impacts of this Project will be less than significant with mitigation. (c) Sensitive Receptors. The PEIR evaluated air quality impacts of the SLVNSP and determined that future warehousing could have significant impacts on nearby residential uses and their residents (referred to as “sensitive receptors”). EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-7 required preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for any future warehouse uses to determine any specific impacts of an actual development proposal and to determine if mitigation would be required. Potential impacts may result from both construction and/or operation of warehousing. The first step in the analysis is to determine if the Project exceeds any of the Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) established by the SCAQMD.

LSTs - Construction
Pursuant to MM AQ-2 of the PEIR, the following analysis is presented to determine if the proposed Project would be required to implement any limitations on grading activity to prevent localized air quality 895
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 33
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. The SCAQMD has established that air quality impacts are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) which represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. Table 7 (Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Construction) summarizes the Project’s localized construction emissions compared to the applicable thresholds. Table 7 indicates emissions from Project construction will not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and are therefore less than significant. No mitigation beyond that outlined in the PEIR would be required (MM AQ-1 and AQ-2) for construction impacts.

Table 7
Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Construction Total Maximum
Daily Emissions
Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project 60.7 31.2 13.8 6.8
SCAQMD Thresholds 236.0 2,817.0 38.0 12.0
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Source: Table 4, UR 2021a
1 Emissions results rounded off from UR 2021 report
LSTs - Operation
Table 8 (Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Operation) summarizes the operational air quality localized emissions resulting from the Project. According to Table 8, the proposed Project’s operational-related activity would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds, and a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation beyond that outlined in the PEIR would be required (MM AQ-3 through AQ-6) for operational impacts.

Table 8
Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Operation Total Maximum
Daily Emissions
Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project 6.1 6.9 1.9 0.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 236.0 2,817.0 10.0 3.0
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Source: Table 6, UR 2021a
1 Emission results rounded off from UR 2021 report
Health Risk Assessment
Pursuant to PEIR MM AQ-7, a diesel health risk assessment (HRA) has been prepared for the proposed warehouse project. This analysis evaluates the potential mobile source health risk impacts to receptors (i.e., local residents or workers) associated with the development of the Project. Health risk exposures were modeled in accordance with guidelines issued by the SCAQMD and the State Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). The boundaries of the modeled source area are shown in Exhibit 4 (Modeled Source Area Map). To assess the potential for long-term operational impacts, the HRA identified the following five (5) receptor locations, as shown on Exhibit 5 (Sensitive 896
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
34 City of Banning
Receptor Locations), as representative of the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site for more detailed analysis. All distances were measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever was closer to the Project site.

R1 Location R1 represents the existing residence at 5778 Joshua Palmer Way, approximately 543 feet north of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R1 is placed at the building façade.

R2 Location R2 represents the residence at 301 Northwood Avenue, approximately 725 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R2 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard).

R3 Location R3 represents the existing Assisted Living and Memory Care at 5801 Sun Lakes Boulevard, approximately 110 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R3 is placed at the building façade.

R4 Location R4 represents the existing residence at 5831 Oakmont Drive, approximately 115 feet south of the Project site. Receptor R4 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard).

R5 Location R5 represents the existing residence at 6111 Wingfoot Avenue, approximately 134 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R5 is placed at the building façade.

The HRA evaluated potential health risk impacts that could result at the five closest sensitive receptor locations from exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM) generated by heavy-duty diesel trucks from on-site idling, on-site travel, and off-site travel. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk from Projectrelated emissions was estimated at 1.32 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. At these same locations, non-cancer risks were estimated to be less than

0.01, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold of 1.0. Therefore, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk at any potentially affected receptors, and no specific HRA-related mitigation is required.
897
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 35
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 4
Modeled Source Area Map
898
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
899
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 37
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 5
Sensitive Receptor Locations
900
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
38 City of Banning
(d) Other Emissions. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding or any manufacturing uses that could create objectionable odors. The PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP would have a less than significant impact with respect to creating objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people because it would not include any of these types of uses. Because the Project similarly does not include such uses, it would also have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Conclusion. The PEIR indicated that development of the SLVNSP would result in significant air quality impacts in terms of AQMP consistency and cumulative air pollutant emissions exceeding established standards. However, the Project proposes approximately 30 percent less development on the site compared to that evaluated in the PEIR. The Project’s Air Quality Assessment indicates the Project would not conflict with the AQMP and would not result in air pollutant emissions that would exceed or cause violations of established standards. A health risk assessment for the Project was also prepared per the PEIR’s MM AQ-7. The Project will implement MMs AQ-1 through AQ-6 as recommended in the PEIR. In these ways, the Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 901
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 39
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.4 – Biological Resources
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by
the California Department
of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
No No Impact No No No
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
No No Impact No No No
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?
No No Impact No No No
902
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
40 City of Banning
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
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?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Listed or Sensitive Species. As described in the PEIR, most of the site is non-native annual grassland, with a small patch of southern willow scrub at the southwest corner and a narrow strip of California buckwheat scrub along the northeastern site boundary. Ornamental trees line the southern and western boundaries and part of the eastern boundary. These trees are either on adjacent properties or along Sun Lakes Boulevard.

A total of 36 plant species were identified during the survey prepared as part of the P EIR. Of the 36 species, 19 (53 percent) are non-native. Additional annual plant species may occur but were not detected due to timing of the survey. No federal or state-listed plants or special status plants were observed. The site is not within U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for any listed plant species. Listed and special status plants known from the region are either absent, not expected to occur, or have low potential for occurrence onsite.

No special status plant species were identified during the PEIR’s survey, but the survey was not conducted during the flowering season for most species. The site has long-term and ongoing anthropogenic disturbance and undisturbed natural habitat capable of supporting special status plants is not present. Most special status plants known from the region are either absent or not expected to occur onsite; a few have low potential for occurrence. No special status plants have moderate or high potential to occur onsite.

A total of 15 wildlife species (mostly birds) were detected during the PEIR’s survey. No federal or state-listed endangered or threatened species were observed. The site is not within USFWS designated critical habitat for any listed wildlife species. No special status wildlife species were observed. Most listed or special status species are not expected to occur or have low potential for occurrence except as described below.
903
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 41
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
No burrowing owls, occupied burrows, or owl sign was observed during the PEIR’s survey.

However, because burrowing owls can occupy the site in the future, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. Within 30 calendar days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall implement focused preconstruction surveys. Surveys shall be conducted by a CDVW-approved biologist prior to the initiation of ground disturbance (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading). In conformance with Burrowing Owl Survey instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (2006) and California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s 1993 protocols (which are recommended by the CDFW), the surveys will consist of a minimum of three site visits.

A brief biological technical report will be prepared and submitted to the City that describes the results of the preconstruction survey. The report shall be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If the preconstruction survey does not identify burrowing owls in the impact area, a grading permit may be issued without restriction. If it is determined that burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent shall immediately inform RCA, USFWS, and CDFW and will be required to prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan for approval by RCA, USFWS, and CDFW prior to initiation of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are determined to be present in areas proposed for ground disturbance, the following avoidance measures will be implemented:
a. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Owls on-site after March 1 will be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. This nest protection buffer will be maintained until August 31 or based on monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

Unless otherwise authorized by CDFW and/or the RCA, a 250‐foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31 or based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. For burrowing owls present during the nonbreeding season (generally September 1 to January 31), a 150‐foot buffer zone will be maintained around the occupied burrow(s).
b. If there is any possibility that owls will be injured or killed as a result of construction activities, the birds may be passively relocated during the nonbreeding season in coordination with the City, RCA, and CDFW. Relocation of owls will be performed by a qualified biologist using one‐way doors, which should be installed in all burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. Immediately prior to the initiation of grading, these one‐way doors will be removed and the burrows backfilled. To avoid the potential for owls evicted from a burrow to occupy other burrows in the impact area, 904
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 City of Banning
one‐ way doors will be placed in all potentially suitable burrows in the impact area when eviction occurs.
c. Preparation of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan may be required if active and/or passive relocation is necessary. The relocation plan will outline the basic process and provides options for avoidance and mitigation. The relocation plan will be approved by the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW prior to implementation.

There is suitable habitat for nesting birds on and adjacent to the site. Nesting birds may utilize trees and other vegetation, structures, idle vehicles/equipment, and open ground. Although no raptor nesting was observed during the period of time the PEIR’s surveys were conducted, there is suitable habitat for nesting birds on and adjacent to the site that can be occupied in the future; therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is required.

BIO-2 Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Banning Planning Department shall ensure vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements:
a) A migratory nesting bird survey of the Project’s impact footprint shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three business (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance.
b) A copy of the migratory nesting bird survey results report shall be provided to the City of Banning Planning Department. If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the qualified biologist shall provide the Planning Department with a copy of maps showing the location of all active nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones as determined by a qualified biologist, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist and Planning Department verify that the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

No federal or state-listed endangered or threatened wildlife species or special status wildlife species were observed during the PEIR’s survey. Due to long-term and ongoing anthropogenic disturbance, undisturbed natural habitat capable of supporting most special status wildlife is generally lacking onsite. Most special status wildlife known from the region are either absent, not expected to occur, or have low potential for occurrence onsite, except as described below.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-2, this potential impact would be considered less than significant.
(b) Riparian or Sensitive Habitat. As described in the PEIR, there is no vernal pool habitat onsite.

Soil types mapped (and observed) onsite are not consistent with an alkali playa or vernal pool complex. Pools or depressions characteristic of vernal pool habitat were not observed onsite. No Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) species listed for protection associated with riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools were observed. No evidence of ponding was observed onsite. Tire ruts are present on an access road along the northern site 905
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 43
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
boundary, but the ruts were dry at the time of the survey and soils onsite are sandy to coarse sandy loam (i.e., well drained). Therefore, there will be no impacts to riparian or sensitive habitat. (c) Wetlands. As described in the PEIR, there are no USGS mapped blue-line streams onsite. A shallow trench is present along the site’s southern boundary (along Sun Lakes Boulevard) and trends from west to east. A double culvert is present at the southeast corner of the site. A small area of willow thicket is present in the southwest corner of the site in association with a trench.

Another shallow trench is present within the central portion of the site and trends from west to east.

No water or evidence of flow was observed in these trenches during the survey. The trenches appear to be remnants of past disturbance involving water quality or flood control measures and do not have connectivity with any natural waterway. There would be no impact to wetlands. (d) Wildlife Movement. As described in the PEIR, wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals dispersing from natal areas or individuals extending their range), seasonal migration, and movements related to home range activities (e.g., foraging for food or water, defending territories, or searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover). The site is surrounded by major roadways and residential developments and does not function as part of a wildlife corridor. There would be no impact to wildlife migratory corridors. (e) Local Policies. According to the PEIR, the Project site contains a number of trees along the southern and southeastern boundaries of the site. The PEIR stated that tree removals are strongly discouraged and require replacement under City of Banning Municipal Code Section 17.32.060. It was also indicated it was unknown if these trees would be removed as part of future development.

The EIR required that Mitigation Measure BIO-3 in the event the trees were removed.

The Project landscape plan does not show preservation of any existing trees onsite, nor does it indicate if any existing trees will be reused onsite. It does show that dozens of new trees (ten different species) will be planted in and around the proposed commercial buildings and the warehouse property. Assuming the development plan will remove the onsite trees, the Project will be required to implement EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-3.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-3 Native Tree Removal. Native trees to be impacted by development of projects pursuant to the Specific Plan shall be assessed by a certified arborist as to the viability and value of the trees to determine if mitigation and replacement are required. Removal of healthy, shade-providing, and aesthetically valuable trees shall be strongly discouraged and shall conform with the policies and programs of the City of Banning General Plan. A tree removal and replacement plan shall be required for the removal and replacement of all trees more than 50 years of age unless their removal is required to protect the public health and safety. Each identified tree removed shall be replaced with at least one 36- inch box specimen tree, in addition to any other required landscaping. (f) Habitat Conservation Plans. As described in the PEIR, the Project site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP, a regional Habitat Conservation Plan was adopted on June 17, 2003. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special‐status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to sensitive species. Based on the Habitat Assessment (Appendix D of the PEIR):
906
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
44 City of Banning
1) The site is not mapped within any MSHCP Criteria Cell or subunit. 2) The site is not mapped within an area where additional surveys are required for any Amphibian, Mammal, or other Criteria Area Species.
3) The project will not impact any Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool areas. 4) The site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Conservation Areas and therefore does not require mitigation measures pursuant Section 6.1.4 (pertaining to Urban/ Wildlands Interface) of the MSHCP, which presents guidelines to minimize indirect effects of Projects in proximity to the MSCHP Conservation Areas.
5) The site is mapped within a Burrowing Owl (BUOW) required habitat suitability assessment survey area. Therefore, to be thorough, a habitat suitability assessment for BUOW was conducted during site visit. The result of the assessment was that no BUOW habitat or BUOW sign was detected on site, and this species is currently considered absent from the Project area.

However, because BUOW have been known to occupy disturbed sites, Mitigation Measure BIO1 is required. 6) The site is mapped within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species required habitat suitability assessment survey area. Therefore, to be thorough, a habitat suitability assessment for the three listed Narrow Endemic Plant Species was conducted during site visit. Based on habitat requirements for specific species, availability and quality of habitats needed by the three Narrow Endemic Plant Species, it was determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for Narrow Endemic Plant species San Diego ambrosia, Brand’s phacelia, and San Miguel Savory.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, potential impacts related to the MSHCP would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Conclusion. The Project site does not contain wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive plants or animals, or other important biological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, potential impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. In these ways, the Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
907
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 45
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.5 – Cultural Resources
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
No No No No No
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
No No No No No
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Historical Resources. The Project area lies within Stewart Ranch which was utilized for grazing, agricultural, and water control/conveyance purposes. This suggests that any buried historic artifacts and/or deposits that may be present would most likely reflect those activities (e.g., horse shoes, tacks, barbed wire, sparse occurrences of tin cans and glass bottles, other water conveyance/control features, etc.) and would most likely not be considered historically significant in and of themselves.

As described in the PEIR, the Project area was once part of Stewart Ranch, owned and operated by Reznor P. Stewart between 1883 and 1933 and by his daughters Laura May and Clara between 1933 and 1967. L&L, which prepared cultural resources reports for the PEIR, identified a linear resource (RPGX-1H) in the Project area consisting of an earthen bermed ditch constructed by a bulldozer sometime before 1953 and associated with water control/conveyance efforts instituted on the ranch along Potrero Creek and Smith Creek. RPGX-1H was evaluated and recommended not eligible for the CRHR and does not qualify as a historic resource under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impact to a significant historic resource.
(b) Archaeological Resources. As described in the PEIR, the Project area appears to have low sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources, and it is unlikely that intact, subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits would be uncovered during Project construction. Grading of the site would therefore have a low to moderate sensitivity in terms of revealing archaeological resources. Thus, there are no impacts and no mitigation measures are required based on the results of the cultural resources assessment. For additional information on tribal cultural resources, which can be related to archaeological resources, see impacts and mitigation discussed in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources.
908
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 City of Banning
(c) Human Remains. As described in the PEIR, the Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. If human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with established health and safety regulations will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.

Conclusion. There are no historic resources on the Project site, and the Project area appears to have low sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources. Additionally, compliance with established health and safety regulations will reduce potential human remains impacts to less than significant levels. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

NOTE. As a result of Native American Consultation (NAC) under SB 18, the PEIR did include mitigation for unanticipated discovery of cultural resources as outlined in this document under Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources. No additional NAC is required for this consistency analysis. 909
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 47
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.6 – Energy
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Result in potentially
significant
environmental impact
due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during
project construction or
operation?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct
a state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency??
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Energy Consumption. As described in the PEIR, construction of the development anticipated in the SLVNSP would result in short-term energy demand from construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicle trips to and from the Project site. There is no aspect of the proposed short-term construction process that would result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy because all construction equipment operating on the Project would be required to meet applicable regulatory requirements for fuel efficiency.

Energy demand would result from delivery, employee, and visitor vehicle/truck trips to and from the Project site. Energy that would be consumed by Project‐generated traffic is a function of total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site.

Operational use of energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; operation of electrical systems, security functions, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, perimeter, and parking lot lighting. As shown in Table 4.5-5 of the PEIR, the development of the SLVNSP would create a net increase in electricity demand of approximately 1,679,221 kWh per year.

This net increase is well within SCE’s systemwide net increase in electricity supplies of approximately 15,273 GWh annually over the 2012-2024 period. The proposed Project is a part of the planned development under the SLVNSP and proposes less development than evaluated within the PEIR.

Therefore, there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for the estimated net increase in electricity demands, and buildout under the proposed Project would not require expanded electricity supplies.
910
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 City of Banning
As shown in Table 4.5-5 of the PEIR, the Project would generate a net increase in natural gas demand of approximately 248,201 KBTU/yr. This net increase is well within the Southern California Gas Company’s systemwide natural gas supplies of approximately 923 million therms during the 2017 period. The proposed Project is a part of the planned development under the SLVNSP and proposes less development than evaluated within the PEIR. Therefore, there are sufficient planned natural gas supplies in the region for the estimated net increase in natural gas demands, and buildout under the proposed Project would not require expanded natural gas supplies.

It should be noted that the SLVNSP and its PEIR evaluated a warehouse with 877,298 square feet (sq. ft.) and retail uses with 37,189 sq. ft. while the current proposed Project has only 619,959 sq. ft. of warehousing and 34,000 sq. ft. of retail uses. This means the proposed Project is approximately 30 percent smaller or less intense than the development evaluated in the PEIR, so overall energy use of the Project would be proportionally less than that estimated in the PEIR.

Additionally, the Project would be required to include verification demonstrating compliance with the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and are required to be reviewed. The Project would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.

Even though the Project would increase the consumption of electricity and natural gas resources, the Project would not increase demand such that SoCalGas and SCE would need to plan for new regional electricity or natural gas facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; this potential impact would be considered less than significant. (b) Conflict with Local Plan. The PEIR demonstrated that the SLVNSP’s development, including that proposed on the Project site, was consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan for minimizing GHG emissions on a regional basis. The Project will be required to show verification demonstrating compliance with applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and is also required to be reviewed prior to approval of building permits. The City was a participant in the Sub-Regional Climate Action Plan for the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) which has energy conservation strategies and has its own municipally owned utilities. The Project would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Therefore, the Project is consistent with GHG management plans, and impacts are less than significant.

Conclusion. The Project would not result in a wasteful use of energy or conflict with energy plans. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 911
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 49
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.7 – Geology and Soils
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
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.

No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) Landslides? No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
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?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
912
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 City of Banning
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building
Code (1997), creating
substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or
property?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste
water disposal systems
where sewers are not
available for the
disposal of waste
water?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geologic feature?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Faults and Seismic Shaking. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known faults underlie the site. The Riverside County Parcel Report for the site indicates that the site has a “low” potential for liquefaction.

The Project site is relatively flat and there are no slopes on the site that are subject to a landslide. The Project site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction.

As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct the proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. The City’s Building and Safety Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process, would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels. 913
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 51
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
(b) Erosion. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site has been historically graded and is regularly grubbed/disced, and the loss of topsoil is not a significant impact. Soils in the Project area are particularly prone to erosion during the grading phase, especially during heavy rains. Reduction of the erosion potential can be accomplished through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies Best Management Practices for temporary erosion controls.

Such measures typically include temporary catch basins and/or sandbagging to control runoff and contain sediment transport within the Project site. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Building and Safety Department, prior to provision of permits for the Project, and would include construction BMPs. With adherence to existing regulations, this potential impact would be considered less than significant.
(c) Unstable Geologic Unit. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site is relatively flat, and there are no slopes on the site that are susceptible to a landslide. Lateral spread or flow are terms referring to landslides that commonly form on gentle slopes and that have rapid fluid-like flow movement, like water. The Project site is relatively flat and there are no slopes on the site that are susceptible to lateral spreading. The Riverside County Parcel Report for the site indicates that the site is “susceptible” to subsidence. Soils in the Project area have been mapped as consisting primarily of well-drained, sandy loams of the Ramona sandy loam series. Sandy loams are not expansive and compact well for construction. The Riverside County Parcel Report for the site indicates that the site has a “low” potential for liquefaction. Sandy loams have a low potential for collapse and there are no mining activities occurring on or near the Project site.

Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. Compliance with the recommendations of a site specific geotechnical study for soils conditions is a standard practice and would be required by the City Building and Safety Department. Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the California Building Standards Code as identified in a site specific geotechnical design would be reviewed by the City for appropriate inclusion, as part of the building plan check and development review process, would reduce potential for the above described seismic issues to a less than significant level. (d) Expansive Soils. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site is generally underlain by Ramona sandy loam soil which is generally not considered to be expansive. In addition, detailed designlevel geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction.
(e) Septic Systems. The Project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
(f) Paleontological Resources. As described in the PEIR, the Project has a possibility of encountering paleontological resources underlying the Pleistocene deposits located on the site during grading activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will ensure impacts to paleontological resources are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Proponent shall prepare a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) for the grading and excavation phase of the Project, including both on- and off -site activities. The PRIMP shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Banning Community Development Department and shall conform to the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; including the following:
914
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 City of Banning
a) A trained paleontological monitor shall be present during initial mass grading or deep trenching activities within the Project in sediment areas determined likely to contain paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are located within excavation, the monitoring program will change to full-time. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. The monitor shall be equipped to rapidly remove any large fossil specimens encountered during excavation. During monitoring, samples shall be collected and processed to recover microvertebrate fossils. Processing shall include wet screen washing and microscopic examination of the residual materials to identify small vertebrate remains. Upon encountering a large deposit of bone, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted in accordance with modern paleontological techniques. All fossils collected during the Project shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the museum repository along with the specimens. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities and the significance of the fossils will be prepared. All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage. All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.

Unique Geologic Features. As described in the PEIR, the Project site is relatively flat and the subsurface material encountered at the site consists of disturbed topsoil and native soils. The upper native soils consist of Ramona sandy loam and this type of soil feature is not considered “unique.” Based on the analysis above, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature.

Conclusion. The proposed Project would either have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to geologic and soil constraints with implementation of standard grading, dust control, and erosion control measures and adhering to existing regulatory compliance. There are no unique geologic features at the Project site, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
915
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 53
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on
the environment?
No Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. A detailed assessment of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions was prepared for the PEIR, which studied the development of 877,298 square feet of industrial park use and 37,189 square feet of commercial retail and fast food restaurant uses within the area bounded by the currently proposed Project. There were also medical office uses evaluated in the PEIR, but this portion of the SLVNSP is east and outside of the proposed Project boundary. The PEIR determined that buildout of the SLVNSP would result in total emissions from construction and long-term operation of 11,966.30 MTCO2e, which exceeds the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening thresholds for both a project-specific and cumulative impact. The PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP's GHG impacts would be significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-6.

A detailed GHG assessment (GHGA) was prepared for the proposed Project, which assumed 619,959 square feet of warehousing space and 34,000 square feet of retail and fast-food commercial uses (Urban Crossroads, July 2021a, updated February 2022)(Appendix A). The GHGA assumed that up to a quarter of the warehouse space would be dedicated to cold storage and the rest for high-cube logistics warehousing. The GHGA assumed the commercial space along Sun Lakes Boulevard would be similar to that examined in the PEIR with the addition of a drive-through coffee establishment.

Construction and operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 9. As shown, the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would exceed the applicable significance thresholds consistent with the finding identified in the PEIR. The Project’s GHG emissions would also slightly exceed what was anticipated in the PEIR, but this is not considered a new or substantially more severe impact than what was disclosed in the PEIR. The Project’s increase is only approximately 7%, which would not itself exceed the applicable significance threshold. This slight increase is considered a de minimis increase in the context of GHG as a global, rather than a national, statewide, regional, or local impact; globally it is estimated that the world emits approximately 50 billion tons of GHG emissions 916
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 City of Banning
annually. The proposed Project would also have to implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-6 prior to and during Project construction.

Table 9: Project GHG Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr CO2e)1
PEIR Estimate (for Project area) 8,190.5
Project’s Total Annual Emissions
(Amortized Construction + Operations)
8,795.4
SCAQMD Interim Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Source: Table 7, UC 2021a
1 Metric Tons Per Year of Carbon Dioxide equivalents
Mitigation Measures
The PEIR recommended the following mitigation measures, which will be implemented prior to and during construction of the Project:

GHG-1 GHG Reduction Documentation. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, documentation that the following GHG reduction measures shall be implemented by future development projects is required. Documentation may consist of a letter stating how the project will comply and identify the verification mechanism for each measure required below (e.g. shown on building plans1``1, landscaping plans, etc.) The project shall devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy to reduce water use during project operation. The strategy will include the following:
1) Install drought-tolerant plants for landscaping.
2) Install water-efficient irrigation systems, such as weather-based and soil-moisture- based irrigation controllers and sensors, for landscaping according to the California Department of Water Resources Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
3) Ensure that all landscape and irrigation measures follow the City of Banning’s Landscaping and Water Conservation requirements.

GHG-2 Building Design. The project will design building shells, building components, such as windows, roof systems and electrical systems to meet 2016 Title 24 Standards (or applicable requirements in effect at the time a building permit is applied for).

GHG-3 LEED Features. Buildings will be designed to provide CALGreen Standards with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) features for potential certification and will employ energy and water conservation measures in accordance with such standards. This includes design considerations related to the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and power systems. Additionally, the architectural expression such as roofs and windows in the buildings will relate to conserving energy.

GHG-4 Energy Efficient Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, building plans shall require that high-efficiency lighting (such as LED lighting that is 34 percent more efficient than fluorescent lighting) be installed within buildings on-site.

GHG-5 Efficient Building Materials/Equipment. The project will utilize building materials/methods and heating equipment that are efficient and reduce emissions that may include, but not limited to, high-efficiency heat pumps; thin insulating materials; windows and building 917
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 55
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
surfaces with tunable optical properties; high efficiency lighting devices; improved software for optimizing building design and operation; low cost, easy to install, energy harvesting sensors and controls; interoperable building communication systems; and optimized control strategies.

GHG-6 Reduce Indoor Water Demand. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, building plans shall require that all faucets, toilets, and showers installed in the proposed structures utilize low-flow fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 20% per CalGreen Standards. (b) Conflict with applicable plans. The PEIR determined that, until the City formally adopts a climate action plan, local development is not required to be consistent on a project-by-project evaluation of GHG emissions identified in the Western Riverside Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan, so the SLVNSP was evaluated relative to the goals of AB 32, SB 32, the City’s adopted General Plan policies that pertain to GHG emissions, and the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS or Plan).

The PEIR found the SLVNSP to be consistent with or not in conflict with applicable requirements of those plans (SLVNSP Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-12 to 4.7-15).

The City still has not adopted a climate action plan, and the proposed Project will be required to show verification demonstrating compliance with the same standards applied to the SLVNSP, including the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and will also be required to be reviewed prior to approval of building permits. The City was a participant in the Sub-Regional Climate Action Plan for the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), which has energy conservation strategies and has its own municipally owned utilities. The Project would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, and material conservation, all of which will contribute to reduced GHG emissions from the Project. Finally, the Project will be required to implement Mitigation Measures GHG1 through GHG-6 which are consistent with regional and state plans to reduce GHG emissions in California. Therefore, because the Project is consistent with the SLVNSP, the Project is similarly consistent and would not conflict with all applicable GHG plans. As such, the Project’s impact under this threshold is less than significant.

Conclusion. The PEIR determined that the entire SLVNSP would result in significant GHG emissions, including the planned development of the Project site for industrial and commercial uses. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate slightly higher emissions than what was disclosed in the PEIR, even after implementation of the mitigation identified in the PEIR. However, the Project’s slight increase in emissions is not considered to result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was disclosed by the PEIR. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 918
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 City of Banning

4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
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?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed school?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would it
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment?
No No Impact No No No
919
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 57
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
e) For a project located
within an airport land
use plan or, where
such a plan has not
been adopted, within
two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the
Project result in a
safety hazard or
excessive noise for
people residing or
working in the Project
area?
No No Impact No No No
f) Impair implementation
of or physically
interfere with an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
h) Expose people or
structures, either
directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of
loss, injury or death
involving wildland
fires?
No No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) and (b). Hazardous Materials. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, heavy equipment that would be used during construction of the Project would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The potential for accidental releases and spills of hazardous materials during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with future development that would be a reasonable consequence of the development of the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors are required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous 920
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 City of Banning
materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The Project is proposed as a speculative project and no actual tenants have been identified at this time.

Any business that operates any of the facilities at the Project site and that handles and/or stores substantial quantities of hazardous materials (§ 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would be required to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such a business is also required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which require immediate reporting to Riverside County Fire Department and State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. Potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident operations which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment because use, transport, handling, and disposal of any hazardous substances must comply with all federal, State and local laws regulating their management and use. As such, impacts are less than significant. (c) Proximity to Schools. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is the San Gorgonio Middle School, located approximately 2 miles northwest of the Project site. In addition, as discussed in Section

4.9 (a) and (b) above, the use and handling of all hazardous or potentially hazardous materials must comply with all applicable federal, State, and local agencies and regulations. Impacts are less than significant.
(d) Government Code Section 65962. The PEIR’s Initial Study notes that the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; no impact would occur.
(e) Airport Land Use Plan. As noted in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site is located approximately

4.5 miles west of the Banning Municipal Airport and is not within the Banning Municipal Airport Compatibility Plan. There is no impact.
(g) Emergency Plans. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the City does not have an established evacuation route; however, depending on the location and extent of an emergency, major surface streets could be utilized to route traffic through the City. The I-10 Freeway and State Highway 243 to State Route 79 are also major regional access routes serving the City which could be used during disaster events. Emergency access to the Project site is available from Sun Lakes Boulevard. During construction and long‐term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles to Sun Lakes Boulevard as required by the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of any public road that would impair or interfere with the implementation of evacuation procedures. Because the Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, impacts are less than significant. (h) Wildfire Risks. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and no impact would occur.
921
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 59
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Conclusion. As outlined above, the Project has no impact or less than significant impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, or wildfires. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise
substantially degrade
surface or ground water
supply?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge such that the
project may impede
sustainable
groundwater
management of the
basin?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage
pattern of the site or
area, including through
the alteration of the
course of a stream or
river, or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner
which would:

No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
922
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 City of Banning
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface
runoff in a manner
which would result
in flooding on- or
off-site;
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing
or planned
stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources
of polluted runoff; or
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
No No Impact No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control
plan or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Violate Water Quality Standards. The PEIR indicates the Project site is located within the Whitewater River Region, which includes the urbanized areas that lie approximately between Banning and the San Gorgonio Pass area to the northwest and the Salton Sea to the southeast. The area of Riverside County in the Whitewater River Region is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). The Project site is subject to the Whitewater River Region Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) which describes those activities and programs implemented by the Permittees to manage urban runoff to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit (MS4 Permit) for the Whitewater River Region. The Permittees have revised the SWMP to address 923
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 61
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
2013 MS4 Permit requirements related to the planning and permitting of New Development and Redevelopment Projects within their jurisdictions. The objective of the program is to ensure that controls are in place to prevent or minimize water quality impacts from New Development and Redevelopment Projects to the maximum extent practical (MEP).

Per the City’s development review requirements, the Project applicant will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to demonstrate how it will control short-term water pollution during construction by implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, the Project will prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate how it will control long-term water quality impacts during operation of the Project. The SWPPP and WQMP will be supported by hydrological calculations to demonstrate both short- and long-term water pollution related to the Project site will be protected and maintained within established MEP regulatory limits. Preparation of the SWPPP and WQMP are regulatory requirements of the City and Regional Board to comply with the MS4 permit, therefore, they are not considered project-specific mitigation under CEQA.

The conceptual site plan for the Project (see Exhibit 3) indicates a water quality/detention basin for the Project will be located in the southeast corner of the site, just east of the proposed commercial uses, which will provide long-term protection of water quality for the site. The Project will be subject to water quality standard requirements of the City and Regional Board and will be required to comply with the local MS4 permit; therefore, they are not considered project-specific mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, water quality impacts of the Project will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(b) Groundwater Supplies. The PEIR indicates the City has five sources of groundwater storage supply: Banning Storage Unit; Banning Bench Storage Unit; Banning Canyon Storage Unit; Beaumont Storage Unit; and Cabazon Storage Unit. Because the City's water supply is primarily groundwater, the City is not subject to short-term water shortages resulting from temporary dry weather conditions.

Further, as part of the Beaumont Basin adjudication, the City has the option of storing up to 80,000- acre feet of water in the Beaumont Basin. At the end of calendar year 2014, City of Banning had 46,774 AF of water available in Beaumont Basin storage. The City also purchases State Water Project (SWP) water from the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA), which is one of 29 state water contractors.

Quantities of SWP water purchased are recharged to the Beaumont Basin. Although the City may expect variable reliability in availability of SWP water due to ongoing drought conditions in the state.

Fortunately, SWP is not the City’s primary source of water and short-term declines in SWP water availability would be offset by the City's substantial reserves of stored groundwater. These fluctuations would therefore not result in a substantial impact to the City's water supply over the long-term.

The conceptual site plan for the Project (previous Exhibit 3) indicates a detention basin for the Project will be located in the southeast corner of the site which will prevent post-development increases in runoff from the site. To accomplish this the proposed basin will detain storm water much of which will eventually percolate back into the local groundwater supply. The design of the basin will be supported by hydrological calculations to demonstrate it will meet the established regulatory requirements of the City and County Flood Control District. Meeting these requirements is considered regulatory compliance and is not considered project-specific mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, water quality impacts of the Project will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (c) Alter Drainage Patterns. The PEIR indicates the Project is covered by the Master Drainage Plan for the City of Banning (“Drainage Plan”) prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”) in 1975. The Project site currently drains south toward to Sun Lakes Boulevard. The portion of the site which drains to Sun Lakes Boulevard, sheet flows to the existing storm drain system which then conveys the flows to Smith Creek to the east. Section 13.24.110 of the 924
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 City of Banning
City’s Municipal Code requires land development activities to manage stormwater runoff from the property. Control BMPs include constructing storage and/or infiltration facilities to store runoff from rainfall events up to and including the 100-year, 3-hour duration event. Post development peak urban runoff discharge rates would not exceed pre-development peak urban runoff discharge rates.

The conceptual site plan for the Project (previous Exhibit 3) indicates a detention basin for the Project will be located in the southeast corner of the site which will provide long-term onsite and downstream flood protection. The design of the basin will be supported by hydrological calculations to demonstrate it will meet the established regulatory requirements of the City and County Flood Control District.

Meeting these requirements is considered regulatory compliance and is not considered project-specific mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, water quality impacts of the Project will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(d) Other Water-Related Risks or Pollution. The PEIR indicates FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 060246, the Project site is not located within an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (i.e., not within a 100- year flood plain). Therefore, the potential risk of flooding on the site is minimal. The Project site is 53 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and at an elevation of 2,553 feet above the level of the ocean (there are also two mountain ranges between the ocean and Banning). Therefore, the Project will not have a significant risk from a tsunami. A seiche is a standing seismic wave in bodies of water that can cause dam or reservoir collapse during major earthquakes. There are no dams or large bodies of water in the general area of the Project so there is little risk from seiche. Since there is little risk of flooding, a tsunami, or a seiche affecting the Project, there is little to no risk of pollutants being released during flooding or inundation events. There are no impacts.
(e) Conflict with Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plans Water Quality Control Plan. The PEIR indicates the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. As it affects the Project, the primary regulatory tool is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Clean Water Act prohibits anybody from discharging "pollutants" through a "point source" into a "water of the United States" unless they have an NPDES permit. The permit will contain limits on what you can discharge, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that the discharge does not hurt water quality or people's health.

As indicated in Section 4.10.a above, the Project will implement drainage system improvements consistent with existing water quality regulatory requirements of the City and State. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan. With regulatory compliance, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. The PEIR indicates the Beaumont (groundwater) Basin has already been adjudicated and the City has the option of storing up to 80,000-acre feet of water in that basin. At the end of calendar year 2014, City of Banning had 46,774 AF of water available in Beaumont Basin storage. In addition, the City also purchases State Water Project (SWP) water from the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) to recharge to the Beaumont Basin.

The State Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) classifies California’s 515 groundwater basins into one of four categories high, medium, low, or very low-priority. The Project site is located within the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Basin and is classified as “medium” priority. The SGMA requires medium- and high-priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. 925
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 63
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
The City of Banning in conjunction with other agencies is currently developing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Gorgonio Pass Sub-basin of the Coachella Basin. At this time, the Plan is not adopted but when approved it will manage and monitor groundwater affecting the Project area.

Conclusion. The PEIR concludes that development of the SLVNSP, including the Project site, would not have significant impacts on hydrology, water quality, and other water-related resources and constraints, and no mitigation was recommended. With regulatory compliance, the preceding sections have demonstrated the proposed Project would also not have any significant water-related impacts The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.11 – Land Use and Planning
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Physically divide an
established community?
No No Impact No No No
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact
due to a conflict with
any land use plan,
policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental
effect?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Divide neighborhoods. The PEIR Initial Study states: “An example of a project that has the potential to divide an established community includes the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. The Project site consists of approximately 47-acres of undeveloped land that is adjacent to railroad tracks and the I-10 Freeway to the north and existing development to the east, south, and west. There is no impact.” (IS/NOP SLVNSP PEIR, p. 39.) The Project site consists of approximately 37 acres of undeveloped land that is adjacent to railroad tracks and the I-10 Freeway to the north and existing development to the east, south, and west.

Sidewalk and road improvements along the north side of Sun Lakes Boulevard will help connect existing neighborhoods east and west of the Project site. In addition, the Project has no components that would divide an established community (such as a new freeway through an established neighborhood).

Therefore, similar to the PEIR Initial Study conclusion, the Project will have no impact. (b) Conflict with Applicable Plans. The current General Plan land use designations are Business Park with Specific Plan Overlay and General Commercial with Specific Plan Overlay. The SLVNSP zoning 926
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 City of Banning
designations are Business & Warehouse, Office & Professional, and Retail & Service. The PEIR concluded that policies, standards, and regulations outlined in the SLVNSP were consistent with existing City land use regulations and would not conflict with existing General Plan policies, the Western Riverside County MSHCP, SCAG’s RTP/SCS goals, as well as a variety of other regulatory documents identified and outlined in the Land Use section of the PEIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR.

The Project is a part of the planned development area under the SLVNSP and proposes approximately 30 percent less development than evaluated within the PEIR. The proposed Project is therefore consistent with the growth limits evaluated in the PEIR. The Project is also consistent with the various land use-related plans evaluated in the PEIR which have not changed substantially since the PEIR was certified in 2020. Therefore, impacts related to land use plans are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Conclusion. The Project is consistent with the various land use-related plans evaluated in the PEIR, which have not changed substantially since the PEIR was certified in 2020. Therefore, impacts related to land use plans are less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.12 – Mineral Resources
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
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?
No No Impact No No No
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan or other land use
plan?
No No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Designated Mineral Resources. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project site is located within a mineral resource zone area classified as MRZ-3 as identified in Exhibit IV-8 in the City of 927
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 65
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Banning General Plan. Areas classified as MRZ-3 are defined as containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The City of Banning General Plan identifies one aggregate producer within its planning area; the Banning Quarry which is located in the eastern portion of the City approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the Project site. There are no mining operations on the Project site, and implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of known mineral resources.
(b) Local Mineral Designations. The SLVNSP identifies land uses within the Project site as Business & Warehouse District and Retail & Service District, which generally allow for warehouse, office, and retail uses. As such, the Project site is not delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. There is no impact.

Conclusion. The Project site does not contain identified mineral resources either at a state level or local level that can be reasonably extracted given existing onsite and surrounding land uses. Therefore, there would be no impacts regarding mineral resources The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.13 – Noise
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise
levels?
No No Impact No No No
928
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 City of Banning
Would the Project:

Construction Noise. Noise from grading and construction is typically considered significant only if it occurs outside the allowable times as described by the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.44.090 (7:00 AM and 6:00 PM). However, the PEIR determined that construction noise from the Project site could be significant for the closest noise sensitive uses, which are the single-family homes located approximately 15 feet east of the Office & Professional District of the SLVNSP planning area and the senior apartments/assisted living/memory care residential facility located 60 feet east of the planning area.

The PEIR recommended Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce this impact to less than significant levels.

To minimize noise impacts of the proposed Project, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 from the PEIR will be implemented.

Operational Noise. According to the PEIR, the General Plan noise limit associated with the Business & Warehouse (BW) and Retail & Service (RS) Districts of the SLVNSP are 75 db(A) during the daytime and 65 dB(A) at night (10 PM – 7 AM). The noise assessment prepared for the PEIR determined that noise from parking lot vehicle movements and truck unloading/dock activities around the warehouse could exceed these indicated standards. In addition, the PEIR concluded that truck deliveries to the commercial uses could also exceed these standards (PEIR Table 4.10.4, Project Operational Noise Level Impacts to Sensitive Receptors (RPG 2020a)). The PEIR recommended Mitigation Measure NOI2 once specific development plans were proposed to ensure the warehouse and commercial uses on the site would not have significant operational noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors to the east and south of the Project site. PEIR Table 4.10-5 demonstrated that the SLVNSP would not have significant operational traffic-related noise impacts on surrounding land uses. 929
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 67
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Mitigation Measures
Construction
NOI-1 Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
1) The project applicant shall limit construction activities to the daytime hours between 7 AM to 6 PM, as prescribed in Section 8.44.090(E) of the City’s Municipal Code. 2) For all project construction zones, all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturer’s standards.
3) For all project construction zones, stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. If such stationary equipment produces noise emissions that are directional, said equipment shall be oriented to direct noise emissions away from sensitive receptors. 4) For all project construction zones, stockpiling and staging should be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
5) For construction activity within 50 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of construction and be located between the single-family residences, senior apartments/assisted living/memory care residential facility and the construction zone and all sensitive receptors. The temporary sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that will meet the City’s construction noise threshold of 55 dBA. The noise barrier shall be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 35 or greater. The barrier can be either (a) a ¾-inchthick plywood wall OR (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.7 or higher.

Operation
NOI-2 Final Acoustical Report. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for any project, the property owner/developer shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director to address potential noise impacts to nearby residences. The report shall demonstrate that the project incorporates sufficient noise-attenuation features if needed so that the City’s exterior and interior standards in Municipal Code Sections 8.44.070 and

8.44.090(E) and 4.10 NOISE 4.10-11 in the City’s Noise Element are maintained at nearby residences. Compliance can be achieved with (a) sufficient buffering distances so that nearby sensitive receptors are not significantly impacted by future commercial development OR (b) sufficiently high and long sound barrier wall(s) that are placed between commercial noise sources and receptors (for example, in the case of garbage compactor equipment) OR (c) other adequate noise reduction methods that are approved by the Planning Director or their designee. In all cases, the noise reduction measures shall be technically demonstrated to achieve the appropriate target noise level(s) for both exterior and interior environments for 930
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 City of Banning
nearby residences, as appropriate (e.g., sufficient wall or berm height, sufficient buffering distance, appropriate sound encapsulation/insulation methods, etc.). The individual project owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into the future development.

Per Mitigation Measure NOI-2, a detailed noise assessment was performed on the proposed Project Site Plan (Urban Crossroads, original November 2021, updated February 2022)(Appendix D).

Construction. Using appropriate reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, the noise assessment calculated the Project’s construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations, as shown in Exhibit 6, Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location.
931
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 69
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 6: Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations
932
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 City of Banning
As shown in Table 10, Construction – Exterior Noise Levels, the exterior noise levels from construction are expected to range from 48.9 to 69.0 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 60.9 to 69.0 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations from the SLVNSP planning area.

Table 10: Construction - Exterior Noise Levels
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Arch.

Coatings
Highest
Levels2
R1 65.9 67.9 60.9 58.9 55.9 67.9
R2 58.9 60.9 53.9 51.9 48.9 60.9
R3 67.0 69.0 62.0 60.0 57.0 69.0
R4 66.5 68.5 61.5 59.5 56.5 68.5
R5 66.2 68.2 61.2 59.2 56.2 68.2
Source: Table 8-2, Urban Crossroads, 2022
1 Noise Receiver Locations shown in Exhibit 6
2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations.

To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, the City’s interior construction noise level limit for residential uses of 55 dBA Leq is used as the acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Table 11, Construction – Interior Noise Impacts, shows the highest construction noise levels will range from 35.9 to 44.0 dBA Leq with the estimated interior noise reduction of 25 dBA Leq which will satisfy the City’s 55 dBA Leq interior construction noise level standard. Therefore, unmitigated Project construction noise levels will be less than significant at the nearest sensitive receiver locations.

Table 11: Construction – Interior Noise Impacts
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
Interior
Noise
Reduction
Interior
Noise
Level
Threshold Threshold
Exceeded?3
R1 67.9 -25 43 55 No
R2 60.9 -25 36 55 No
R3 69.0 -25 44 55 No
R4 68.5 -25 44 55 No
R5 68.2 -25 43 55 No
Source: Table 8-3, Urban Crossroads, 2022
1 Noise Receiver Locations shown in Exhibit 6
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 10
3 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the City’s construction noise level threshold? Operation. Using standard reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations, the noise assessment calculated noise levels from typical Project activities, including loading dock operations, roof-top air conditioning units, drive-through speakerphone, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements (see Exhibit 7, Operational Noise Source Locations).

Table 12, Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 38.4 to 47.5 dBA Leq.
933
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 71
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 7: Operational Noise Source Locations
934
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 City of Banning
Table 12 also shows that the Project’s operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 37.4 to 46.5 dBA Leq.

Table 12: Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Daytime Hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Loading Dock Activities 47.3 37.3 34.7 44.1 44.5
Roof-Top Air Conditioners 31.0 26.8 36.1 39.1 37.7
Drive-Thru Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Trash Enclosure Activities 13.8 15.3 22.9 25.6 23.1
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 22.3 22.5 31.5 34.7 35.1
Truck Movements 29.9 29.0 42.3 29.8 30.8
Total Daytime (all noise sources) 47.5 38.4 44.1 45.8 45.9 Nighttime Hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Loading Dock Activities 46.3 36.4 33.7 43.1 43.5
Roof-Top Air Conditioners 28.6 24.4 33.7 36.7 35.3
Drive-Thru Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,5
Trash Enclosure Activities 12.9 14.4 21.9 24.6 22.1
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 21.3 21.5 30.5 33.7 34.1
Truck Movements 29.9 28.1 41.3 28.9 29.8
Total Nighttime (all noise sources) 46.5 37.4 42.9 44.5 44.7 Source: Tables 7-2 and 7-3, Urban Crossroads, February 2022 1 See Exhibit 7 for noise source locations
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, noise levels from Project operations at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were compared to the City’s applicable exterior noise level standards. Table 13, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City’s exterior noise level standards at the nearest receiver locations with the planned 14-foot-high screen wall on the northern Project boundary and the southern loading dock boundary as shown in Exhibit 7, Operational Noise Source Locations. Therefore, the Project’s operational noise impacts are less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations.

Table 13: Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
2 Noise Standard (dBA Leq) Exceeds Standard?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime3 Daytime Nighttime
R1 47.5 46.5 60 68.3 No No
R2 38.4 37.4 60 60.4 No No
R3 44.1 42.9 60 57.0 No No
R4 45.8 44.5 60 64.5 No No
R5 45.9 44.7 60 63.1 No No
Source: Table 7-4, Urban Crossroads, February 2022 Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 See Exhibit 6 for Sensitive Receiver Locations
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown in Table 12 3 Exterior noise level standards adjusted to reflect the ambient noise levels per the City Municipal Code, Chapter 8.44.050 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? 935
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 73
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. The noise assessment uses the significance criteria shown in Table 14, Noise Impact Significance Criteria, to provide an additional assessment of Project noise impacts.

Table 14: Noise Impact Significance Criteria
Analysis Land Use Conditions Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Operational Residential Exterior Noise Level Limit1 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq NoiseSensitive2
if ambient is <60 dBA Leq > 5 dBA Leq Project increase
if ambient is 60-65 dBA Leq > 3 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is >65 dBA Leq > 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction NoiseSensitiveInterior Noise Level Threshold3 55 dBA Leq NA Vibration Level Threshold4 0.3 PPV (in/sec) NA
Source: Table 4-1, Urban Crossroads, February 2022 NA = construction activities are not planned during the nighttime hours "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 1 The City of Banning Municipal Code Chapter 8.44.050
2 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992
3 City of Banning Municipal Code, Sections 8.44.090
4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19 In addition to compliance with the City’s noise standards, the noise assessment calculated the Project’s operational noise level increases as discussed above. The Project’s operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. As shown in Table 15, Operational Noise Level Increase, the Project will generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.4 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will not exceed the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 14 above. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

Table 15: Operational Noise Level Increase
Noise Characteristics Receiver Location1
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Daytime Hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Total Operational Noise Level2 47.5 38.4 44.1 45.8 45.9 Reference Ambient Noise Levels3 61.3 60.1 54.4 66.2 59.4 Combined Project and Ambient4 61.4 60.1 54.8 66.2 59.6
Project Increase5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2
Increase Criteria6 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.5 5.0
Increase Criteria Exceeded?6 No No No No No
Nighttime Hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Total Operational Noise Level2 46.5 37.4 42.9 44.5 44.7 Reference Ambient Noise Levels3 58.8 60.0 57.8 59.7 56.2 Combined Project and Ambient4 59.0 60.0 57.9 59.8 56.5
Project Increase5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Increase Criteria6 5.0 1.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Increase Criteria Exceeded?6 No No No No No
Source: Tables 7-5 and 7-6, Urban Crossroads, February 2022 1 See Exhibit 6 for Sensitive Receiver Locations
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown in Table 12 936
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 City of Banning
3 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels
4 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities 5 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities 6 Significance Criteria as shown on Table 14
Offsite Traffic Noise Analysis. The Project’s noise assessment by Urban Crossroads (November 2021, updated February 2022) also includes an analysis of noise impacts from offsite Project-related traffic. This offsite analysis was based on traffic data from the Project’s traffic assessment (“TA”), also prepared by Urban Crossroads (January 2022, updated February 2022). The noise assessment includes an analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project for informational purposes and to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the TA.

However, this condition would not actually occur since the Project would not be fully constructed and operational until opening year conditions.

Table 16, Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Impacts, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.9 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the City’s significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.

Table 16: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Impacts
Road/Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase Limit Exceeded?
Highland Springs Ave.

North of I-10 Fwy WB Ramps3
North of 2nd Street3
North of 1st Street3
South of 1st Street

76.0 74.4

72.8 70.0

76.0 74.7

73.3 70.1

0.0 0.3

0.5 0.1

1.5 1.5

1.5 1.5
No
No
No
No
1 st Street
West of Highland Springs Ave. 74.9 74.9 0.0 1.5 No
Sun Lakes Blvd.

West of Highland Springs Ave.

East of Sun Lakes Village Dr.

East of Country Club Dr.

72.1 72.1

71.6 73.0

72.1 71.6

0.9 0.0

0.0 1.5

1.5 1.5
No
No
No
Source: Table 7-5, Urban Crossroads, February 2022
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use.

Exceeded? = Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the City’s significance criteria? 3 These segments have non-sensitive land uses adjacent while the unmarked segments have sensitive (residential) uses adjacent.

In addition to the Existing plus Project scenario, the noise assessment examined offsite noise impacts from Project traffic in the horizon year 2040. Table 17 shows Year 2040 Traffic Noise Impacts with Project conditions, indicating that the Project's off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.6 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the City’s significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels. 937
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 75
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Table 17: Year 2040 Traffic Noise Impacts
Road/Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase Limit Exceeded?
Highland Springs Ave.

North of I-10 Fwy WB Ramps3
North of 2nd Street3
North of 1st Street3
South of 1st Street

77.2 75.6

74.2 74.3

77.2 75.8

74.6 74.3

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.0

1.5 1.5

1.5 1.5
No
No
No
No
1 st Street
West of Highland Springs Ave. 76.1 76.1 0.0 1.5 No
Sun Lakes Blvd.

West of Highland Springs Ave.

East of Sun Lakes Village Dr.

East of Country Club Dr.

74.3 73.2

72.7 74.9

73.2 72.7

0.6 0.0

0.0 1.5

1.5 1.5
No
No
No
Source: Table 7-6, Urban Crossroads, February 2022
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use.

Exceeded? = Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the City’s significance criteria? 3 These segments have non-sensitive land uses adjacent while all the other segments have sensitive (residential) uses adjacent.

With implementation of the PEIR’s Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, construction and operational noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels, and no additional mitigation is required.
(b) Excessive Vibration. The PEIR indicated that vibration generated by construction equipment or vehicles and trucks during operation can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment or vehicle involved. Vibration is typically measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second of movement. The operation of construction equipment causes vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings situated on soil near the active construction area respond to these vibrations, which range from imperceptible to low rumbling sounds, with perceptible vibrations and slight damage at the highest vibration levels. Typically, constructionrelated vibrations do not reach vibration levels that would result in damage to nearby structures. The PEIR indicated that potential vibration damage would occur at 0.3 PPV in/sec for old residential structures, 0.5 PPV in/sec for new residential structures.

The PEIR concluded that the closest residential structures to the SLVNSP planning area, are approximately 15 feet east of the Office & Professional District, would experience vibration levels of up to 0.04 PPV which is well below the damage threshold of 0.3 PPV for older residential structures and below the damage threshold of 0.5 PPV for new residential structures. Therefore, vibration levels generated during construction of the proposed Project, which is over 110 feet away from residential receptors, would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

The PEIR also determined that vehicle and truck movements from ongoing Project operations would not generate significant levels of vibration, so impacts would be less than significant and not require mitigation.
938
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 City of Banning
Construction. Based on vibration levels typical for various construction equipment types, the proposed Project’s noise assessment estimated the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the vibration methodology recommended by the Federal Transit Authority. Table 18, Construction Vibration Impacts, 8-5 presents the Project’s related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 110 to 725 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.001 to 0.010 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will not exceed the building damage thresholds at any of the noise sensitive receiver locations.

In addition, the typical construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations do not occur during the entire construction period but rather occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries.

Table 18: Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction Activity
Receivers1
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Distance to Construction Activities (feet)2 543 725 110 115 134 Typical Construction Vibration Levels PPV (in/sec)3
Small bulldozer
Jackhammer
Loaded Trucks
Large Bulldozer
Highest Vibration Level

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.004

0.008

0.010

0.000

0.004

0.008

0.009

0.000

0.003

0.006

0.007

0.007
Thresholds PPV (in/sec)4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Threshold Exceeded?5 No No No No No
Source: Table 8-5, Urban Crossroads, January 2022 "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity 1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 6
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary) 3 Based on typical vibration source levels of construction equipment (UC Table 8-4) 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Tables 19, p. 38 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? (c) Airport/Airstrip Noise. The PEIR states that the Banning Municipal Airport is located approximately

4.5 miles east of the Project site. According to the Banning Municipal Airport Compatibility Plan, the Project site is not located within the area of influence of the plan. Therefore, there are no impacts and no mitigation required.

Conclusion. The PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP, including development of the Project site, would have less than significant noise impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

The proposed Project is of the same type but less intense than the development evaluated in the PEIR.

The Project will implement PEIR Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. Pursuant to MM NOI-2, a noise assessment has been prepared for the Project, and it confirms that the Project will not have any significant noise or vibration impacts. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
939
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 77
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.14 – Population and Housing
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes
and businesses) or
indirectly (for example,
through extension of
roads or other
infrastructure)?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
No No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Induce Population Growth. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the implementation of the SLVNSP would not directly result in population growth because it does not propose any residential dwelling units. It is anticipated that new employees generated by the Project could come from within the local area and would not generate the need for any housing. The proposed Project would be consistent with the development anticipated under the SLVNSP and would provide additional employment as outlined in the PEIR, but it does not include any residential uses. This potential impact would be considered less than significant.
(b) Displace Housing. The Project site does not contain any existing residential housing. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not displace existing housing, nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, so there would be no impact.

Conclusion. The new warehouse and retail uses to be developed by the Project may result in some amount of indirect or induced housing and/or population growth to the degree that the new Project attracts residents choosing to buy a house or rent an apartment and move into the City. However, the Project is not expected to result in the displacement of any existing City residents (population) or housing by its development. Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 940
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 City of Banning

4.15 – 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:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Fire protection?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Police protection?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Schools?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Parks?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Other public facilities?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Fire protection. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, fire protection services for the Project site would be provided by the City through a contractual agreement with the Riverside County Fire Department, which contracts with the California Department of Forestry. Through a mutual aid agreement with surrounding communities, including Beaumont, Calimesa, and Cabazon, each city has access to and benefits from the services provided by fire stations in other cities.

The Project site is served by Fire Station #20 located approximately 0.6 roadway miles west of the site at 1550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA. Development of the Project would impact fire protection services by placing an additional demand on existing Riverside County Fire Department resources should its resources not be augmented. To offset the increased demand for fire protection services, the Project would be conditioned by the City to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply 941
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 79
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing for fire protection facilities. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional fire protection facilities.

The Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives, and this potential impact would be considered less than significant.
(b) Police protection. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project site is currently serviced by the City’s Police Department which is located approximately 4.5 miles east of the Project site at 125 E Ramsey Street in Banning. Development of the Project would impact police protection services by placing an additional demand on existing police resources should its resources not be augmented. The Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing for police protection facilities to offset impacts created by new development. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional police protection facilities. In addition, the Project site is located in a developed area of the City which is routinely patrolled. It is not anticipated that new police facilities would need to be constructed to serve the Project in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, and this potential impact would be considered less than significant. (c) Schools. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project does not include housing which would generate additional students to be served by the Banning Unified School District. The Project would be required to pay applicable development fees to the Banning Unified School District in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Senate Bill 50). Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project‐related impacts to school services; this potential impact would be considered less than significant. (d) Parks. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project does not create a direct additional need for parkland as it does not propose residential uses. However, new employees of the Project may create an incremental indirect increase in the use of local parks. The payment of development impact fees would reduce any indirect Project impacts related to parks; this potential impact would be considered less than significant.
(e) Other public facilities. As noted above, development of the Project would not result in a direct increase in the population and would not increase the demand for public services which would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities. The Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing public facilities. Payment of applicable Development Impact Fees would ensure that the Project provides fair share of funds for additional public facilities; this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Conclusion. The Project would increase the need for fire and police services, but not to the extent that new facilities would be required. As the Project does not includes residential uses, no significant impact to schools or parks is expected, and the Project applicant would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees. The potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 942
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
80 City of Banning

4.16 – Recreation
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Would the Project
increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or
be accelerated?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Does the Project
include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or
expansion of
recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect
on the environment?
No No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Increase Park Use. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project would not cause a substantial physical deterioration of any park facilities or would accelerate the physical deterioration of any park facilities because the Project does not propose residential dwelling units which would increase the population that would use parks. New employees of the Project may create an incremental indirect increase in the use of local parks, however, this potential impact would be considered less than significant.
(b) Need for New Parks. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project does not propose any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. In addition, no offsite parks or recreational improvements are proposed or required as part of the Project; there would be no impact related to construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Conclusion. The proposed project does not include residential uses, and any increase in park or recreational facility usage associated with construction of the Project would be considered minimal as the Project would not increase the population that would use park facilities. Furthermore, the Project applicant would need to pay applicable parks related development impact fees. The potential recreation impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or 943
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 81
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.17 – Transportation
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the
circulation system
including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Would the project
conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
No Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Circulation Plan Consistency. Although the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) methodology is now applied in evaluating potential transportation impacts of a project, the City’s General Plan identifies standards for maintaining an adequate level of service (LOS) for City streets and intersections. To be consistent with the 2020 State CEQA Guidelines, a LOS analysis is not required for purposes of this CEQA analysis. However, a trip generation and a VMT assessment of the Project were prepared to determine if the Project would generate more traffic than was estimated for the SLVNSP or evaluated in its PEIR (UC 2021b-c)(see Appendices B and C).
944
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
82 City of Banning
Trip Generation. A traffic study was prepared for the PEIR, which evaluated the development of 877,298 square feet of industrial park use and 37,189 square feet of commercial retail use within the area bounded by the currently proposed Project. There were also medical office uses evaluated in the PEIR, but this portion of the SLVNSP is east and outside of the proposed Project boundary. Table 19 (Project Trip Generation vs. PEIR Estimate) indicates the portion of the SLVNSP within the Project boundaries would generate 3,844 actual-vehicle trips, or 4,530 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, under the assumptions of the PEIR, which takes into account truck lengths when estimating vehicle trips.

A detailed Traffic Assessment (TA) was prepared for the proposed Project based on 619,959 square feet of warehousing space and 34,000 square feet of retail and fast-food commercial uses (Urban Crossroads, January 2021b, updated February 2022)(Appendix B). The TA assumed up to a quarter of the warehouse space was for cold storage, and the rest was for high-cube logistics warehousing. The TA assumed the commercial space along Sun Lakes Boulevard would be similar to that examined in the PEIR with the addition of a drive-through coffee establishment. The TA shows that the proposed Project would generate 2,292 actual-vehicle trips, or to 2,730 PCE trips, as shown in Table 19.

Table 19
Project Trip Generation vs. PEIR Estimate
Traffic
Condition
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
Daily
Total
PEIR Estimate (for Project area)
Actual Vehicles 375 445 3,844
PCE1 440 498 4,530
Proposed Project
Actual Vehicles 317 337 2,292
PCE1 340 359 2,730
Source: Tables 3 and 4, UC 2021b
1 PCE = Passenger Car Equivalents based on the number of passenger cars and truck trips As shown, the Project generates fewer trips than what was anticipated by the PEIR for the SLVNSP. This analysis is presented for informational purposes only because generation of trips, which affects the performance of intersections and road segments, no longer needs to be analyzed under CEQA, as automobile delay is no longer considered a significant environmental impact.

Transit. The PEIR stated that The Pass Transit System, which consists of two independent transit systems, the Banning Municipal Transit System and the Beaumont Municipal Transit System, provides for a coordinated bus service to the cities of Banning and Beaumont. Beaumont Transit has bus service along Highland Springs Avenue, 2nd Street, and 1st Street via Route, Route 4, and Community Link 120/125. Pass Transit has bus service along Highland Springs Avenue, 2nd Street, and 1st Street via Route 1, Route 5, and Route 6. The closest bus stop is within the Sun Lakes Village residential community located across Sun Lakes Drive just south of the Project site. There are no bus stops currently located on Sun Lakes Boulevard adjacent to the Project site. In addition, Sun Lakes Boulevard is a fully improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and a landscaped parkway adjacent to the Project site.

The Project applicant is proposing to construct two (2) access driveways on Sun Lakes Boulevard, which will be constructed to meet City standards. The driveways do not have the potential to preclude the availability of bus service to the Project site when it is completed. The existing transit routes could potentially serve the Project since transit service is reviewed and updated by Beaumont Transit and 945
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 83
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Pass Transit periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. Therefore, any Project impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails. According to the PEIR, there are existing pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the Project site that are available to serve the Project. The Circulation Element of the City General Plan does not indicate that this portion of Sun Lakes Boulevard will have a bicycle lane or trail associated with full improvements. However, Highland Springs Avenue south of Sun Lakes Boulevard has a bicycle lane on the west side of the street. Section 5.106.4.1.2 of the CalGreen Code requires that the Project provide secure bicycle parking which will be included at various locations throughout the Project site. Therefore, any Project impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Summary. Based on this information, the Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (b) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The PEIR included an assessment of VMT impacts from the SLVNSP and concluded that VMT impacts were significant and could not be reduced to less than significant levels, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure VMT-1.

In response to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which now identify Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project's transportation impact under CEQA (Section 15064.3).

Effective July 1, 2020, the previous CEQA metric of level of service (LOS), typically measured in terms of automobile delay, roadway capacity and congestion, will no longer constitute a significant environmental impact.

In addition to the trip generation assessment (UC 2021b), a detailed VMT assessment was prepared for the Project (UC 2021c). To aid in the transition to VMT assessment, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory. The City of Banning has developed their own Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Local Transportation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (City Guidelines), which is currently in draft form and pending final City Council adoption. The draft City Guidelines were utilized to prepare this Project VMT analysis, which is consistent with the City’s Guidelines.

Project Screening
The City’s Guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land development project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed analysis. The applicable screening thresholds to the Project are broken into the following types: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening; Map-Based Screening based on Low VMT Area; Local-Serving Retail Screening; and Project Type Screening. A land development project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

For the purposes of this analysis, the initial VMT screening process where applicable has been conducted using the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool), which uses screening criteria consistent with the screening thresholds recommended in the City’s Guidelines. 946
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
84 City of Banning
(1) TPA Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the OPR Technical Advisory and City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”i or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”ii) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

Based on the Screening Tool results, the Project site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, the TPA screening threshold is not met. (2) Low VMT Area Screening
The City Guidelines state that, “proposed residential, office, industrial, or mixed-use projects, which are located within the low VMT zones identified after applying appropriate VMT analysis thresholds (provided later in this chapter) in the screening tool, and which do not require a GPA or COZ would be deemed to have less than significant impact.” The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within the WRCOG region. The Project’s physical location based on parcel number was selected within the Screening Tool to determine the relevant TAZ’s VMT as compared to the jurisdictional average (see Attachment B). The Project boundary is located in TAZ 4344 and would appear to be within a low VMT generating TAZ based on daily home-based work (HBW) VMT per worker. Based on a review of the land use information contained within TAZ 4344 for the RIVTAM base year (2012) model, the zone includes very low levels of employment and low amounts of population and household data. The proposed Project would significantly increase the quantity and type of employment uses in the zone and would therefore not be entirely consistent with the underlying land use assumptions. Therefore, the Low VMT Area screening threshold is not met. (3) Local Serving Retail Screening
The City Guidelines provide that local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition to local serving retail, other types of local serving uses such as day care centers, non-destination hotels, affordable housing, places of worship, municipal services, and other local serving uses may also be i Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). ii Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 947
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 85
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
presumed to have a less than significant impact as they tend to shorten vehicle trips. The retail uses within the proposed Project do not exceed the 50,000 square feet screening threshold, and the retail uses are designed to be local-serving. The Project Type screening threshold is met for the Project’s retail component only.
(4) Project Trip Screening
The City’s Guidelines identifies that projects generating fewer than 500 daily vehicle trips (for projects requiring a GPA and fewer than 1,000 daily vehicle trips (for projects not requiring a GPA) are anticipated to meet the City’s Project Trip Screening threshold and result in a less than significant impact. Based on the Project’s forecasted trip generation (see UC 2021b), the Project would generate more than 1,000 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the Project Trip screening threshold is not met.

Summary of Project Screening. The Project’s retail component is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. Since none of the applicable land development screening criteria were met for the Project’s industrial component, the VMT Analysis included more in-depth VMT analysis for the Project’s industrial component only.

Industrial Assessment
The Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) is a tool to estimate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data such as population, households, and employment. The City Guidelines provide that until RIVCOM is released by WRCOG, RIVTAM is the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the City. The Project’s VMT was calculated using the most current version of RIVTAM. Adjustments in socioeconomic data (SED) (i.e., Project employment) was made to a separate TAZ within the RIVTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed employment uses (i.e., industrial). Table 20 (Project Employment Estimate) summarizes the employment estimate for the Project which is consistent with the land use to employment generation factors from the Riverside County General Plan.

Table 210
Project Employment Estimate
Land Use
Building
Area (SF)
Building Area
Per Employee (SF)
Estimated
Employees1
Industrial 619,959 1,030 602
Source: Table 1, UC 2021c
1 Riverside County General Plan Employment Factors
Consistent with recommendations contained in the City’s Guidelines, calculation of VMT for “other land uses” that are not residential or retail land use types are evaluated using VMT per employee. For land uses where VMT per capita or VMT per employee are suitable metrics, the City Guidelines suggest the use of the Production-Attraction (PA) trip matrices be utilized. Using these matrices, Project generated VMT was calculated consistent with the PA matrices methodology identified in Section 5.4, Detail VMT Forecasting Methodology, of the City Guidelines. VMT is then normalized by dividing by the number of Project employees. As shown in Table 21 (Project VMT Per Employee), the Project’s VMT per employee is 14.26 miles per worker.
948
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
86 City of Banning
Table 11
Project VMT Per Employee
VMT Characteristic Baseline
Employment 602
VMT 8,582
HBW VMT/Workers1 14.26
Source: Table 2, UC 2021c
1 HBW VMT/Workers is a measure of all auto trips between home and work and does not include heavy duty truck trips or freight, which is consistent with OPR direction and Riverside County VMT calculation guidelines.

The City’s Guidelines provide VMT thresholds for their predominant land use types such as residential, office, and retail. For “other land uses,” City Guidelines state the threshold as “any net increase in VMT per employee for uses that are consistent with the General Plan, and for projects seeking a GPA the threshold would be 10.9 VMT per employee”. As the proposed Project is consistent with the SLVNSP Amendment No. 5, which is consistent with the General Plan, a threshold of no net increase in VMT per employee was utilized. The VMT per employee value previously calculated for the Amendment No. 5 is utilized as the impact threshold.

Table 22 (VMT Per Employee Comparison) provides a comparison between the Project’s generated VMT per employee to the VMT per employee previously calculated by the PEIR for the SLVNSP Amendment No. 5. The VMT per employee value for the approved Amendment No. 5 was 14.33, while the Project’s calculated VMT per employee value is 14.26. As shown in Table 22, the Project would not result in a net increase in VMT per employee and would therefore not result in a significant impact relative to VMT and CEQA Guidelines.

Table 12
VMT Per Employee Comparison
VMT Characteristic Baseline VMT Per Employee
PEIR (Amendment No. 5) 14.33
Proposed Project 14.26
Difference (Project vs. PEIR) -0.07
Net Increase? No
Source: Table 3, UC 2021c
VMT Impact Summary. The Project’s retail component falls below the City’s adopted local serving retail screening threshold, and therefore the retail component of the Project has a less than significant VMT impact. The Project’s industrial component was then evaluated and compared to the City’s adopted impact threshold of no net increase in VMT per employee. The Project generated VMT per employee value was found to be less than that already disclosed by the PEIR for the approved Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP. Therefore, the Project’s potential VMT impacts are less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required. However, the PEIR recommended Mitigation Measure VMT-1, which will be implemented as part of the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures
VMT-1 Pedestrian Network Improvements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, site plans for future development shall provide a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site internally and to Sun Lakes Boulevard.
949
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 87
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
The Project will have less than significant impacts regarding VMT, and although mitigation is therefore not required, the Project will include implementation of PEIR Mitigation Measure VMT-1. (c) Circulation Design Hazards. The PEIR indicates this section of Sun Lakes Boulevard is fully improved with a curvilinear alignment but contains no geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) that are considered hazardous. Final Project site plans will be subject to City review and approval, which will ensure that driveway intersections and internal circulation are safe, with adequate sight distance, driveway widths and stop signs for entering and exiting the site. The Project area is suburban in nature with no agricultural uses, so there is little potential for conflict with other uses.

Therefore, the Project will have no impacts due to a hazardous geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and no mitigation is required.
(d) Emergency Access. Sun Lakes Boulevard provides immediate emergency access to the Project site, while regional access is provided by Highland Springs Avenue a quarter mile to the west with ramps to the I-10 Freeway immediately north of the site. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space will be provided around the building for emergency personnel and equipment to access the site. The warehouse will be required to comply with the California Fire Code in terms of emergency access to the building itself. The Project site plan includes three ingress/egress access points, one 40-foot wide signalized intersection off of Sun Lakes Boulevard, one 40-foot access road at the southeast corner of the site, and one 40-foot point from Sun Lakes Village Drive at the southwest corner of the Project site.

The site plan also shows a minimum 24-foot wide fire lane around both the warehouse building and the commercial buildings. Therefore, the Project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Conclusion. The PEIR concluded that VMT impacts of the SLVNSP/ Amendment No. 5 were significant even with mitigation. The PEIR determined the other transportation-related impacts were less than significant. A VMT assessment of the currently proposed Project shows that the Project would have less than significant impacts based on its current design. For consistency, the Project will also implement PEIR Mitigation Measure VMT-1. The Project’s TA also shows that the Project will generate fewer trips than what was disclosed by the PEIR for the SLVNSP. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
950
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
88 City of Banning

4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
No No Impact No No No
b) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in
its discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall
consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.

No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Eligible for Listing. As described in the PEIR, the Project area has low sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources, and it is unlikely that intact, subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits would be uncovered during Project construction. Sensitivity for encountering historic-age archaeological resources is considered low-to-moderate. However, the Project area lies within Stewart Ranch, and the land within the Project area was utilized for grazing, agricultural, and water control/conveyance purposes. This suggests that any subsurface historic artifacts and/or deposits that may be present would most likely reflect those activities (e.g., horse shoes, tacks, barbed wire, sparse occurrences of 951
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 89
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
tin cans and glass bottles, other water conveyance/control features, etc.) and would most likely not be considered historically significant. Thus, there is no impact, and no mitigation measures are required. (b) Significant Tribal Resources. As described in the PEIR, the City consulted with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians under SB 18 and AB 52, and it was determined that tribal cultural resources may be encountered during grading activities. Therefore, the PEIR recommended Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-6, which will be implemented by the Project. No additional consultation is required for this consistency analysis.

Mitigation Measures
TCR-1 Retain Qualified Professional Archaeological Monitor. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeological monitor who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI). The monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The monitor will conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribes Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). The training session will focus on what the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event.

TCR-2 Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the qualified archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site, in coordination with Tribe.

TCR-3 Tribal Monitoring Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal monitoring agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the project. The Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all ground disturbing activities including clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind. The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

TCR-4 Specific Conditions. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Tribal cultural, and/or archaeological resources within the project area. This includes cultural materials both on the surface and buried. Should human remains be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground-disturbing activity (i.e. grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases, excavation of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop (within 100-foot buffer of the discovery), the area shall be protected, project personnel/observers restricted, and the County Coroner to be contacted pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. In the event human remains are found and identified as Native American, the landowner shall also notify the City Planning Department so that the City can ensure PRC § 5097.98 is followed. No photographs are to be taken except by the Coroner.
a) In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources or other cultural resources are discovered during project development and construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop (within 60-foot buffer of the discovery) and the area protected by fencing 952
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
90 City of Banning
and guarding until a qualified archaeologist (i.e. meeting Secretary of the Interior standards) assesses the discovery. Overall project work may continue during this period of assessment. b) If archaeological assessment indicates that significant Native American cultural resources or other cultural resources are present, a Treatment Plan must be prepared in consultation with the Tribe. The developer will notify the Lead Agency and contract with qualified Cultural Resources Management (CRM) firm to develop the Treatment Plan. c) If requested by the Tribe, the developer or the project archaeologist shall, in good faith, immediately initiate consultation with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding further actions to be taken including, but not limited to, avoidance, preservation in place, removal, and disposition.

TCR-5 Inadvertent Discovery During Grading. In the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall stop (within 60-foot buffer of the discovery) or shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified Archaeologist. A treatment plan shall be developed by a qualified Archaeologist (meeting SOI standards) in consultation with the Tribe and the City Planning Department to include relinquishment of all artifacts through one of the following methods:
a) This reburial area of cultural resource items shall be away from any future impacts and reside in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing; analysis and any necessary special studies have been completed on the cultural resources. Details of contents and location of the reburial shall be documented in a Final Report and shall remain as confidential. b) The Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD) may wish to rebury the human remains and/or associated funerary objects, as close to the place of their discovery, in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances and reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial will not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains will be determined by the landowner, City Planning Department, in consultation with the Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD).
c) Curation at a Riverside County Curation facility that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers and tribal members for further study. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence shall be provided in the form of a letter from the curation facility identifying that archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid.

TCR-6 Documents. Any and all cultural documents created as a part of the project (Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plans, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to consulting Tribe.

Conclusion: With implementation of PEIR Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-6, the potential impacts to tribal cultural resources will be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
953
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 91
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or
construction of new or
expanded water,
wastewater treatment
or storm water
drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the
construction or
relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable
future development
during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider which serves
or may serve the
Project that it has
adequate capacity to
serve the Project’s
Projected demand in
addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
954
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
92 City of Banning
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
d) Generate solid waste
in excess of State or
local standards, or in
excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local
management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to
solid waste?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Utility Infrastructure. The PEIR indicated construction of the SLVNSP would require connections to existing water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The PEIR stated the Project area was already served by these utilities.

Off-site utility improvements needed to serve the Project site would occur within existing improved rights of way and on-site within areas already planned for development by the Project. The PEIR concluded there were no components of the Project’s proposed utility connections that would result in significant environmental impacts, and no mitigation was required.
(b) Sufficient Water Supplies. To assess the ultimate effect of the SLVNSP’s water demands and service needs, the City of Banning Water Department has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) in accordance with SB 610 as part of the PEIR process. The SLVNSP was estimated to have a total annual water demand of 279 acre-feet per year (afy). The expected water demand for the entire SLVNSP was within the City’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years for the next 20 years. Therefore, the PEIR concluded there would be adequate water supplies to meet the projected water demand associated with the SLVNSP in addition to the existing and other planned future uses of the City’s water system.

The proposed Project represents a large portion but not all of the approved SLVNSP land uses (i.e., it does not include 52,065 square feet of medical offices within the Office & Professional District). The proposed Project is also approximately 30 percent less intense (i.e., less warehouse and commercial development) than was evaluated in the PEIR. Since the WSA prepared for the SLVNSP addressed development in excess of the proposed Project, it can be concluded the City can provide sufficient water over the long-term to serve the proposed Project. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
955
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 93
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
(c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The PEIR indicated that wastewater flows collected within the City’s service area are currently treated at one facility, the Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant has capacity to treat up to 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and treated an average of 2.07 MGD in 2016. According to the City, the entire SLVNSP was estimated to generate approximately 53,580 gpd (0.5 MGD) which represented 1.78% of the treatment plant’s capacity in 2025 and 1.16% in 2040 (PEIR Table 12). The PEIR concluded this represented a less than significant impact, and no mitigation was required.

The proposed Project represents a large portion but not all of the development proposed within the SLVNSP. Since the PEIR concluded the wastewater from the entire SLVNSP was less than significant, then wastewater generated by the proposed Project would likewise be less than significant in terms of wastewater treatment capacity, and no mitigation is required. (d) Solid Waste Infrastructure. The PEIR indicated that Waste Management Inc. is the franchise waste hauler for all customers in the City of Banning. The Riverside County Waste Management Department provides recycling and disposal services for the City. Solid waste generated by the SLVNSP would be disposed of at three landfill facilities in Riverside County, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill, the El Sobrante Landfill, and the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. These three landfills have a total combined capacity of 282.5 million cubic yards and a remaining (residual) capacity of approximately 180 million cubic yards of waste. The Badlands facility is expected to close in 2022, the Lamb Canyon facility in 2029, and the El Sobrante facility in 2051 (PEIR Table 13). The PEIR estimated the entire SLVNSP would generate approximately 1,689 tons or 6,255 cubic yards of solid waste per year. At that time, that amount of waste represented 0.018% of the remaining capacity of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill, 0.003% of the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill, and 0.0001% of the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Therefore, the PEIR concluded the Project’s solid waste would not make a significant contribution to the landfill capacity and that current landfill facilities were sufficient. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation was required.

The proposed Project represents a large portion but not all of the development proposed within the SLVNSP. Since the PEIR concluded the solid waste generated by the entire SLVNSP was less than significant in terms of landfill capacity, the wastes generated by the proposed Project would likewise be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
(e) Solid Waste Regulations. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project operator(s) would be required to coordinate with the waste hauler to develop collection of recyclable materials for the commercial facility on a common schedule as set forth in applicable local, regional, and State programs.

Recyclable materials that would be recycled by the commercial facility include paper products, glass, aluminum, and plastic. Additionally, the Project’s waste hauler would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal solid waste disposal standards, thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to the landfills that serve the commercial facility are reduced in accordance with existing regulations. This potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Conclusion. The PEIR concluded that utility and service demands of the entire SLVNSP were less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Since the proposed Project is a large portion but not all of the development planned under the SLVNSP, the proposed Project would also have less than significant impacts related to utilities and services. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
956
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
94 City of Banning

4.20 – Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
No No Impact No No No
b) Due to slope,
prevailing winds, and
other factors,
exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby
expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of
wildfire?
No No Impact No No No
c) Require the installation
or maintenance of
associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water
sources, power lines or
other utilities), that may
exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the
environment?
No No Impact No No No
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including
downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or
drainage changes?
No No Impact No No No
957
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 95
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) through (d). As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and no impact would occur. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.

As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
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?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
b) Does the Project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
c) Does the Project have
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse
effects on human
beings, either directly
or indirectly?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
958
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
96 City of Banning
(a) Significant Biological or Cultural Impacts. The PEIR identified no endangered or threatened species on or supported by the Project site. As stated in Section 4.4, development of the proposed Project would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or restrict the movement/distribution of a rare or endangered species. Development of the proposed Project would result in the conversion of approximately 37.05 acres of vacant, disturbed land to industrial warehouse and retail commercial uses. The proposed Project would not affect any threatened or endangered species or habitat. Impacts to migratory birds, the burrowing owl, and nesting bird species would be mitigated to a less than significant level with adherence to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 from the PEIR, which require burrowing owl and nesting surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities, as well as protection for native trees. Potential impacts to onsite biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to the identified mitigation measures.

The site once supported the Stewart Ranch but there are no known unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the site, nor are there any Native American, religious, or sacred uses associated with the Project site. There are also no structures present that would be eligible for listing in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, so they are not considered historical resources under CEQA, and thus there will be no significant impacts resulting from the development of the Project on these resources. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-6 and GEO-1 have been identified to mitigate potential impacts associated with the discovery of unanticipated subsurface historical, archaeological, tribal cultural, and/or paleontological resources (respectively) during excavation operations. Adherence to regulatory requirements and the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural, historic, or paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
(b) Cumulative Impacts. The proposed Project site is located within an area that has been designated for industrial and commercial uses. The PEIR determined that air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from short-term construction and long-term operation of the SLVNSP would be significant, even with adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 and GHG-1 through GHG-6 identified in the PEIR. Potential cumulative impacts related to geology and soils (regarding erosion) and water quality are addressed by regulatory compliance regarding erosion control.

The type, scale, and location of the proposed Project is consistent with and less intense than that evaluated in the PEIR, and the Project is consistent with the General Plan and the SLVNSP (zoning) for the Project site. Because of this consistency, the other potential cumulative environmental effects of the proposed Project would fall within those already identified in the PEIR. Therefore, no cumulative impact greater than those identified in the PEIR would result from either the construction or occupation of the proposed Project and implementation of the recommended Project mitigation. (c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. As detailed in the preceding responses, development of the proposed Project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects to human beings. Short- and long-term construction noise impacts are addressed by Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, and no significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur with the implementation of the proposed Project.

As documented in the PEIR, development of the Project site will not result in any significant direct or cumulative impacts related to hydrology (in terms of flooding), hazards, or hazardous materials. In addition, the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project shows that there would be no significant cancer or non-cancer health risks from the proposed warehouse or commercial uses on nearby sensitive receptors, so mitigation is not required.
959
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 97
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
5 Applicable Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project: City of Banning – Banning Point Project Date: February 10, 2022 * denotes mitigation measure is from the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan EIR Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Air Quality AQ-1* Use Low VOC Paint. To reduce VOC emissions associated with architectural coating, the project designer and contractor shall reduce the use of paints and solvents by utilizing pre-coated materials (e.g. bathroom stall dividers, metal awnings), materials that do not require painting, and require coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113 to be utilized. The construction contractor shall be required to utilize “Super Compliant” VOC paints, which are defined in SCAQMD’s Rule 1113. Construction specifications shall be included in building specifications that assure these requirements are implemented. The specifications for each implementing development project shall be reviewed by the City of Banning’s Building and Safety Division for compliance with this mitigation measure prior to issuance of a building permit.

Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Building and
Safety Division
Plans to specify use of
Low VOC coatings
Air Quality AQ-2* Grading Limitations. During the City’s review process for applications under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall conduct or shall have conducted modeling of the regional and the localized emissions (NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) associated with the maximum daily grading activities estimated for the proposed individual developments one acre or larger. If the modeling shows that emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for those emissions, the maximum daily grading activities of the proposed development shall be limited to the extent that could occur without resulting in emissions in excess of SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for those emissions. For implementing projects within the Specific Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a focused project level air quality assessment that includes the modeling of localized on-site emissions associated with daily grading activities anticipated for the proposed development.

Prior to issuance of
a grading permit
Planning
Division
Submit air quality study
for review and approval
Air Quality AQ-3* Electrical Hookups for Loading Docks. Trucks accessing the Project site may have auxiliary power units (APU) and/or transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Therefore, electrical hookups shall be Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
City
Inspectors
Verify installation of
electrical hookups
960
98 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
installed at all loading docks, and to reduce/replace APU use while trucks are parked along the docks, to allow trucks with APU and/or TRUs with electric standby capabilities to plug in when TRUs are in use to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions.

The City shall verify electrical hookups have been installed prior to occupancy.

Air Quality AQ-4* Idling Limits. All facilities shall post signs informing users of requirements limiting idling to five minutes or less pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485 in order to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions. No overnight/long-term parking will be allowed. The City shall verify signage has been installed prior to occupancy.

Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
City
Inspectors
Verify installation
of signs
Air Quality AQ-5* Electric or Natural Gas Service Equipment. Service equipment (i.e., yard hostlers and forklifts) used within the site shall be electric or compressed natural gas powered to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions.

Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
Planning
Division
Owner/Lessee to
provide documentation
of
vehicle fuel sources
Air Quality AQ-6* Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Prior to approval of implementing commercial plot plan(s) within the Project the City of Banning Planning Division shall ensure that the plot plan(s) include a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. The electric vehicle charging stations also shall be depicted on building plans for implementing development within Project site. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed commercial land uses within the Project site, the City of Banning Building and Safety Department shall ensure that a minimum of three electric vehicle charging stations have been installed on-site.

Prior to approval of
implementing plot plan
and Certificate of
Occupancy
Planning
Division
Verify charging stations
on site plan
AQ-7* Heath Risk Assessment. During the City’s review process for any future development applications under the Specific Plan that proposes a warehouse or distribution project, the applicant shall submit a Health Risk Assessment pursuant to the “Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis.” If the modeling shows that emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for those emissions, the following performance-based measures shall be required in order to reduce emissions to less than significant levels.

The measures shall include the following:

During project application
review and processing
Planning
Division
Submit Health Risk
Assessment report.

This report has been
prepared and is included
with this Addendum for
review and approval by
the City
961
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 99
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
1) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant and/or building operators shall submit construction plans and a construction vehicle management plan to the City of Banning denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. The construction vehicle management plan shall include such things as: idling time requirements; requiring hour meters on equipment; and documenting the serial number, horsepower, age, and fuel of all onsite equipment.

The plan shall include that California state law requires equipment fleets to limit idling to no more than 5 minutes. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project as determined by the City.
2) Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the operator of a warehouse/distribution center use shall place signs that identify CARB anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include:
1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for trucks drivers to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
3) Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for a
warehouse/distribution center use, the City shall require operators of the proposed facilities to encourage the vendor trucks to incorporate energy efficiency improvement features through the Carl Moyer Program— including truck modernization, retrofits, and/or aerodynamic kits and low rolling resistance tires—to reduce fuel consumption.
4) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a
warehouse/distribution center use, the building shall be designed to provide infrastructure to support use of electric-powered forklifts and/or other on-site equipment.

Biological
Resources
BIO-1* Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. Within 30 calendar days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall implement focused preconstruction surveys. Surveys shall be conducted by a Within 30 days prior
to the start of grading
Planning
Division
Developer shall retain
qualified biologist and
962
100 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
CDVW-approved biologist prior to the initiation of ground disturbance (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading). In conformance with Burrowing Owl Survey instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (2006) and California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s 1993 protocols (which are recommended by the CDFW), the surveys will consist of a minimum of three site visits. A brief biological technical report will be prepared and submitted to the City that describes the results of the preconstruction survey. The report shall be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If the preconstruction survey does not identify burrowing owls in the impact area, a grading permit may be issued without restriction. If it is determined that burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent shall immediately inform RCA, USFWS, and CDFW and will be required to prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan for approval by RCA, USFWS, and CDFW prior to initiation of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are determined to be present in areas proposed for ground disturbance, the following avoidance measures will be implemented:
a. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Owls on-site after March 1 will be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. This nest protection buffer will be maintained until August 31 or based on monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

Unless otherwise authorized by CDFW and/or the RCA, a 250‐foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31 or based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. For burrowing owls present during the If owls found onsite
prior to grading
Planning
Division
submit study to City for
review and approval
Biologist to prepare a
Burrowing Owl
Protection and
Relocation Plan and
submit to resource
agencies for review and
approval
963
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 101
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
nonbreeding season (generally September 1 to January 31), a 150‐ foot buffer zone will be maintained around the occupied burrow(s). b. If there is any possibility that owls will be injured or killed as a result of construction activities, the birds may be passively relocated during the nonbreeding season in coordination with the City, RCA, and CDFW. Relocation of owls will be performed by a qualified biologist using one‐way doors, which should be installed in all burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. Immediately prior to the initiation of grading, these one‐way doors will be removed and the burrows backfilled. To avoid the potential for owls evicted from a burrow to occupy other burrows in the impact area, one‐ way doors will be placed in all potentially suitable burrows in the impact area when eviction occurs.
c. Preparation of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan may be required if active and/or passive relocation is necessary. The relocation plan will outline the basic process and provides options for avoidance and mitigation. The relocation plan will be approved by the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW prior to implementation.

Biological
Resources
BIO-2* Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Banning Planning Department shall ensure vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements:
a) A migratory nesting bird survey of the Project’s impact footprint shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three business (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance. b) A copy of the migratory nesting bird survey results report shall be provided to the City of Banning Planning Department. If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the qualified biologist shall provide the Planning Department with a copy of maps showing the location of all active nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact.

The size and location of all buffer zones as determined by a qualified biologist, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Provide setbacks
if active nests are
found per BIO-1
Planning
Division
Monitoring by qualified
biologist if needed
during grading with final
report upon completion
964
102 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Department. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist and Planning Department verify that the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

Biological
Resources
BIO-3* Native Tree Removal. Native trees to be impacted by development of projects pursuant to the Specific Plan shall be assessed by a certified arborist as to the viability and value of the trees to determine if mitigation and replacement are required.

Removal of healthy, shade-providing, and aesthetically valuable trees shall be strongly discouraged and shall conform with the policies and programs of the City of Banning General Plan. A tree removal and replacement plan shall be required for the removal and replacement of all trees more than 50 years of age unless their removal is required to protect the public health and safety. Each identified tree removed shall be replaced with at least one 36-inch box specimen tree, in addition to any other required landscaping.

Prior to removal
of onsite trees
Planning
Division
Arborist to certify
removal of trees as
appropriate per tree
removal and
replacement plan
Geology
and Soils
GEO-1* Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Proponent shall prepare a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) for the grading and excavation phase of the Project, including both on- and off -site activities. The PRIMP shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Banning Community Development Department and shall conform to the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; including the following:
a) A trained paleontological monitor shall be present during initial mass grading or deep trenching activities within the Project in sediment areas determined likely to contain paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are located within excavation, the monitoring program will change to full-time. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.

The monitor shall be equipped to rapidly remove any large fossil specimens encountered during excavation. During monitoring, samples shall be collected and processed to recover microvertebrate fossils. Processing shall include wet screen washing and microscopic Prior to issuance
of a grading permit
Planning
Division
Proof qualified
paelontologist has been
retained and PRIMP has
been prepared,
approved, and
implemented
965
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 103
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
examination of the residual materials to identify small vertebrate remains.
b) Upon encountering a large deposit of bone, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted in accordance with modern
paleontological techniques.
c) All fossils collected during the Project shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the museum repository along with the specimens. d) A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities and the significance of the fossils will be prepared. All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
e) All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.

Greenhous
e Gas
Emissions
GHG-1* GHG Reduction Documentation. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, documentation that the following GHG reduction measures shall be implemented by future development projects is required. Documentation may consist of a letter stating how the project will comply and identify the verification mechanism for each measure required below (e.g., shown on building plans, landscaping plans, etc.)

1. The project shall devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy to reduce water use during project operation. The strategy will include the following:
• Install drought-tolerant plants for landscaping.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems, such as weatherbased and soil-moisture- based irrigation controllers and sensors, for landscaping according to the California
Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Planning
Division
Verification letter
accepted demonstrating
compliance
966
104 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Department of Water Resources Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
• Ensure that all landscape and irrigation measures follow the City of Banning’s Landscaping and Water Conservation
requirements.

Greenhous
e Gas
Emissions
GHG-2* Building Design. The project will design building shells, building components, such as windows, roof systems and electrical systems to meet 2016 Title 24 Standards (or applicable requirements in effect at the time a building permit is applied for).

Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Community
Development
Department
Review and approve
Title 24 calculations
Greenhous
e Gas
Emissions
GHG-3* LEED Features. Buildings will be designed to provide CALGreen Standards with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) features for potential certification and will employ energy and water conservation measures in accordance with such standards. This includes design considerations related to the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and power systems. Additionally, the architectural expression such as roofs and windows in the buildings will relate to conserving energy.

Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Community
Development
Department
Provide proof of
LEED compliance
Greenhous
e Gas
Emissions
GHG-4* Energy Efficient Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, building plans shall require that high-efficiency lighting (such as LED lighting that is 34 percent more efficient than fluorescent lighting) be installed within buildings on-site.

Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Community
Development
Department
Plans demonstrate high
efficiency lighting to be
installed
Greenhous
e Gas
Emissions
GHG-5* Efficient Building Materials/Equipment. The project will utilize building materials/methods and heating equipment that are efficient and reduce emissions that may include, but not limited to, high-efficiency heat pumps; thin insulating materials; windows and building surfaces with tunable optical properties; high efficiency lighting devices; improved software for optimizing building design and operation; low cost, easy to install, energy harvesting sensors and controls; interoperable building communication systems; and optimized control strategies.

Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Community
Development
Department
Plans demonstrate
specified materials and
equipment provided
Greenhous
e Gas
Emissions
GHG-6* Reduce Indoor Water Demand. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, building plans shall require that all faucets, toilets, and showers installed in the proposed structures utilize low-flow fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 20% per CalGreen Standards.

Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Community
Development
Department
Plans demonstrate
specified materials and
equipment provided
Noise NOI-1* Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that ongoing during grading and Prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit
Planning
Division
Plans demonstrate
compliance with
restrictions
967
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 105
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
1) The project applicant shall limit construction activities to the daytime hours between 7 AM to 6 PM, as prescribed in Section

8.44.090(E) of the City’s Municipal Code.
2) For all project construction zones, all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturer’s standards. 3) For all project construction zones, stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. If such stationary equipment produces noise emissions that are directional, said equipment shall be oriented to direct noise emissions away from sensitive receptors. 4) For all project construction zones, stockpiling and staging should be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. 5) For construction activity within 50 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of construction and be located between the singlefamily residences, senior apartments/assisted living/memory care residential facility and the construction zone and all sensitive receptors. The temporary sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that will meet the City’s construction noise threshold of 55 dBA.

The noise barrier shall be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 35 or greater. The barrier can be either (a) a ¾-inch-thick plywood wall OR (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.7 or higher.

Noise NOI-2* Final Acoustical Report. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for any project, the property owner/developer shall submit a Prior to issuance of the
first building permit
Planning
Division
Submit final acoustical
report
968
106 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director to address potential noise impacts to nearby residences. The report shall demonstrate that the project incorporates sufficient noiseattenuation features if needed so that the City’s exterior and interior standards in Municipal Code Sections 8.44.070 and 8.44.090(E) and

4.10 NOISE 4.10-11 in the City’s Noise Element are maintained at nearby residences. Compliance can be achieved with (a) sufficient buffering distances so that nearby sensitive receptors are not significantly impacted by future commercial development OR (b) sufficiently high and long sound barrier wall(s) that are placed between commercial noise sources and receptors (for example, in the case of garbage compactor equipment) OR (c) other adequate noise reduction methods that are approved by the Planning Director or their designee. In all cases, the noise reduction measures shall be technically demonstrated to achieve the appropriate target noise level(s) for both exterior and interior environments for nearby residences, as appropriate (e.g., sufficient wall or berm height, sufficient buffering distance, appropriate sound
encapsulation/insulation methods, etc.). The individual project owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into the future development.
for review and approval.

This report has been
prepared and is included
with this Addendum for
review and approval by
the City
TransporationVMT-1* Pedestrian Network Improvements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, site plans for future development shall provide a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site internally and to Sun Lakes Boulevard.

Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Planning
Division
Verify plans show
required pedestrian
network improvements
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
TCR-1* Retain Qualified Professional Archaeological Monitor.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeological monitor who meets U.S.

Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI). The monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The monitor will conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribes Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). The training session will focus on what the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits or any
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Division
Provide staff training
and monitor grading
969
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 107
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
TCR-2* Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the qualified archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site, in coordination with Tribe.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits or any
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Division
Prepare, submit, and
obtain approval of
Archaeological
Monitoring and
Treatment Plan
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
TCR-3* Tribal Monitoring Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal monitoring agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the project.

The Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all ground disturbing activities including clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind. The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits or any
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Division
Provide signed copy of
tribal agreement to the
City
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
TCR-4* Specific Conditions. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Tribal cultural, and/or archaeological resources within the project area. This includes cultural materials both on the surface and buried.

Should human remains be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground-disturbing activity (i.e. grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases, excavation of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop (within 100-foot buffer of the discovery), the area shall be protected, project personnel/observers restricted, and the County Coroner to be contacted pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. In the event human remains are found and identified as Native American, the landowner shall also notify the City Planning Department so that the City can ensure PRC § 5097.98 is followed. No photographs are to be taken except by the Coroner.

During grading or other
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Division
Contact/coordinate with
County Coroner and
tribal
groups as appropriate
970
108 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
A) In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources or other cultural resources are discovered during project development and construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop (within 60-foot buffer of the discovery) and the area protected by fencing and guarding until a qualified archaeologist (i.e. meeting Secretary of the Interior standards) assesses the discovery. Overall project work may continue during this period of assessment.

B) If archaeological assessment indicates that significant Native American cultural resources or other cultural resources are present, a Treatment Plan must be prepared in consultation with the Tribe. The developer will notify the Lead Agency and contract with qualified Cultural Resources Management (CRM) firm to develop the Treatment Plan.

C) If requested by the Tribe, the developer or the project archaeologist shall, in good faith, immediately initiate consultation with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding further actions to be taken including, but not limited to, avoidance, preservation in place, removal, and disposition.

Tribal
Cultural
Resources
TCR-5* Inadvertent Discovery During Grading. In the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall stop (within 60-foot buffer of the discovery) or shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified Archaeologist. A treatment plan shall be developed by a qualified Archaeologist (meeting SOI standards) in consultation with the Tribe and the City Planning Department to include relinquishment of all artifacts through one of the following methods:

A) This reburial area of cultural resource items shall be away from any future impacts and reside in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing; analysis and any necessary special studies have been completed on the cultural resources. Details of contents and location of the reburial shall be documented in a Final Report and shall remain as confidential.

B) The Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD) may wish to rebury the human remains and/or associated funerary objects, as close to the During grading or other
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Department
Halt work and
development/
implement a treatment
plan
971
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 109
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
place of their discovery, in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances and reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial will not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains will be determined by the landowner, City Planning Department, in consultation with the Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD).

C) Curation at a Riverside County Curation facility that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers and tribal members for further study. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence shall be provided in the form of a letter from the curation facility identifying that archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid.

Tribal
Cultural
Resources
TCR-6* Documents. Any and all cultural documents created as a part of the project (Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plans, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to consulting Tribe.

Within 60 days of
completion of grading if
AMTP documents
produced
Planning
Department
Qualified archaeologist
provides AMTP
documents to City
* denotes mitigation measure is from the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan EIR 972
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 110
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
6 References

6.1 – List of Preparers
City of Banning (Lead Agency)
Community Development Department
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, California 92220
(951) 922-3190
▪ Adam Rush, Community Development Director
MIG (Environmental Analysis)
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 102
Riverside, California 92507
951-787-9222
▪ Pamela Steele, Principal
▪ Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services
▪ Kent Norton, AICP, REPA, Senior Project Manager
▪ Chris Dugan, Director of Air Quality, GHG, and Noise Services ▪ Phillip Gleason, Senior Environmental Analyst
▪ Cameron Hile, Senior Analyst
▪ Amy Paulsen, Senior Analyst
Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Air Quality, GHG, Trip Generation, and VMT Technical Studies) 1001 Dove Street, Suite 260
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 660-1994
▪ Haseeb Qureshi, Associate Principal
▪ Alex So, Senior Analyst

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
None

6.3 – Bibliography
City of Banning (City), 2006a. City of Banning General Plan. City Community Development Department and Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. January 31, 2006.

City of Banning (City), 2006b. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2005011039).

City Community Development Department and Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. January 18, 2006.

Romo Planning Group (RPG), 2020a. Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, Amendment 5, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2020029074) and Appendices (including Appendix A – Initial Study and Notice of Preparation). September 9, 2020.
973
References
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 111
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Romo Planning Group (RPG), 2020b. Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, Amendment 5. November 4, 2020.

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (UC), 2021a. Banning Point Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Memorandum. July 19, 2021, updated February 10, 2022 (Appendix A).

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (UC), 2021b. Banning Point (TPM 38164) Traffic Assessment. January 3, 2022, updated February 8, 2022 (Appendix B).

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (UC), 2021c. Banning Point Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. October 20, 2021 (Appendix C).

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (UC). 2022. Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. November 29, 2021, updated February 7, 2022 (Appendix D).
974
References
112 City of Banning
Appendix A
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,
& Health Risk Assessment Memorandum
975
13841-04 AQ, GHG, & HRA Memo
February 10, 2022
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
SUBJECT: BANNING POINT AIR QUALITY,GREENHOUSE GAS, & HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

MEMORANDUM
Dear Mr. Adam Rush:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, & Health Risk Assessment Memorandum for the Banning Point Project (“Project”), which is located on the northeast corner of Sun Lake Village Drive and Sun Lake Boulevard in the City of Banning, as shown on Exhibit A.

The nearest sensitive residential land uses are located east and south of the project site. Specifically, the following assessment has been prepared in support of the proposed Project CEQA Addendum/Consistency Checklist to determine whether the proposed Project would result in new or substantially different air quality, greenhouse gas, or health risk impacts than those considered and addressed in the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Final Environmental Impact Report (referred to as “Certified EIR”) dated October 28, 2020.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Certified EIR evaluated the development of 877,298 square feet of industrial park use and 37,189 square feet of commercial retail use within the area bounded by the proposed Project. There was also 52,065 square feet of medical office use evaluated in the Certified EIR, however, this portion of the Specific Plan lies outside of the proposed Project boundary. As such, only the industrial park and commercial retail uses have been contemplated for the purposes of this assessment.

The Project is proposed to consist of 464,969 square feet of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use (75% of the industrial use), 154,990 square feet of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (25% of the industrial use), 16,200 square feet of fast-food restaurant without drive-through window use, 1,600 square feet of coffee-donut shop with drive-through window use, and 16,200 square feet of shopping center use as shown on Exhibit B. Consistent with the Certified EIR, the industrial uses are proposed on the northern end of the site with the commercial retail uses fronting Sun Lakes Boulevard to the south. 976
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

Banning City CouncilJune 11, 2024

Banning City Council
June 11, 2024