Agenda packet, regular meeting, third session — Banning City Council, June 11, 2024 (part 7 of 8)

13841-07 TA Letter
Consistent with the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study, the following 9 study area intersections were evaluated as part of this focused traffic assessment (see Exhibit 2):

1. Highland Springs Av. & I-10 Westbound Ramps

2. Highland Springs Av. & I-10 Eastbound Ramps

3. Highland Springs Av. & 2nd St.

4. Highland Springs Av. & 1st St. / Sun Lakes Bl.

5. Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Driveway 1

6. Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl.

7. Driveway 2/Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl.

8. Driveway 3 & Sun Lakes Bl.

9. Twin Hills Dr./Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl.

The Project will construct a traffic signal at Sun Lakes Village Drive and Country Club Drive on Sun Lakes Boulevard, lengthen the eastbound left turn pocket at Sun Lakes Village Drive to accommodate 150-feet of storage, and widen Sun Lakes Village Drive along the Project’s frontage to accommodate dedicated lanes for trucks to enter the Project. Delays for the proposed Project are anticipated to be less than those anticipated with the project evaluated in the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study. However, the Project should contribute its fair share towards off-site improvement needs through payment of fees into pre-existing fee programs (such as WRCOG TUMF and County DIF) and/or fair share contribution. The proposed Project fair share percentages range between 2-14.5% (as compared to the 6.7-34.2% for the project evaluated in the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study).

TRIP GENERATION

CURRENTLY APPROVED TRIP GENERATION
The SPA No. 5 Traffic Study 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 SPA No. 5 Traffic Study, 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 trip generation assessment. The trip generation summary for the currently approved Project uses is shown on Table 1.

As shown on Table 1, the currently approved uses were anticipated to generate 3,844 two-way trips per day, with 375 trips during the AM peak hour and 445 trips during the PM peak hour. In passenger car equivalents (PCE), the currently approved uses were anticipated to generate 4,530 two-way PCE trips per day with 440 AM PCE peak hour trips and 498 PM PCE peak hour trips. Excerpts from the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study are included in Attachment A.
1345
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 3 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter
TABLE 1: CURRENTLY APPROVED TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
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 casual restaurant use, 1,600 square feet of coffee-donut shop with drive-through window use, and 16,200 square feet of strip retail plaza use.

Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles):

Industrial Park 877.298 TSF
Passenger Cars: 250 59 309 66 250 316 2,514
2-axle Trucks: 6 1 7 1 5 6 74
3-axle Trucks: 7 2 9 2 6 8 92
4+-axle Trucks: 21 5 26 5 17 22 278
Total Trucks: 34 8 42 8 28 36 444
Industrial Park Subtotal 284 67 351 74 278 352 2,958
Commercial Retail 37.189 TSF 22 13 35 68 74 142 1,404
Internal Capture -7 -4 -11 -5 -1 -6 -60
Pass-By (34% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -21 -21 -43 -458
Retail Subtotal 15 9 24 42 51 93 886
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 299 76 375 116 329 445 3,844 Trip Generation Summary (PCE):

Industrial Park 877.298 TSF
Passenger Cars: 250 59 309 66 250 316 2,514
2-axle Trucks: 9 2 11 2 7 9 112
3-axle Trucks: 14 3 17 3 11 14 184
4+-axle Trucks: 64 15 79 14 52 66 834
Total Trucks (PCE): 87 20 107 19 70 89 1,130
Industrial Park Subtotal 337 79 416 85 320 405 3,644
Commercial Retail 37.189 TSF 22 13 35 68 74 142 1,404
Internal Capture -7 -4 -11 -5 -1 -6 -60
Pass-By (34% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -21 -21 -42 -458
Retail Subtotal 15 9 24 42 51 93 886
Total Trips (PCE)2 352 88 440 127 371 498 4,530
Source: Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Traffic Analysis (dated September 4, 2020). 1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1346
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 4 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter
Trip generation and vehicle mix for the proposed Project land uses are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their latest Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) in conjunction with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Warehouse Truck Trip Generation Data Results and Usage (2014) for the High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse land use and the High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January 29, 2019) for the High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse land use. The trip generation rates for the proposed Project are provided on Table 2.

TABLE 2: TRIP GENERATION RATES
As shown on Table 3, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 2,292 two-way trips per day, with 100 trips generated during the AM peak hour and 237 trips generated during the PM peak hour (in actual vehicles).

ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units1 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates:

High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse2 TSF -- 0.094 0.028 0.122 0.046 0.119 0.165 2.129 Passenger Cars 0.079 0.024 0.103 0.040 0.104 0.144 1.750 2-4 Axle Trucks 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.003 0.008 0.011 0.162 5+-Axle Trucks 0.008 0.003 0.011 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.217 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars (AM = 72.7%, PM = 75.0%, Daily = 64.6%) 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.065 0.090 1.370 2-Axle Trucks (AM = 9.5%, PM = 8.7%, Daily = 12.3%) 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.260 3-Axle Trucks (AM = 3.0%, PM = 2.7%, Daily = 3.9%) 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.083 4+-Axle Trucks (AM = 14.8%, PM = 13.6%, Daily = 19.2%) 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.407 Fast Casual Restaruant TSF 930 0.715 0.715 1.430 6.903 5.648 12.550 97.140 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Thru TSF 937 43.799 42.081 85.880 19.495 19.495 38.990 533.570 Strip Retail Plaza (<40 TSF) TSF 822 1.416 0.944 2.360 3.300 3.290 6.590 54.450 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trip Generation Rates:

High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse2 TSF -- 0.094 0.028 0.122 0.046 0.119 0.165 2.129 Passenger Cars 0.079 0.024 0.103 0.040 0.104 0.144 1.750 2-4 Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.012 0.004 0.016 0.006 0.016 0.022 0.324 5+-Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.025 0.008 0.033 0.008 0.022 0.030 0.651 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.065 0.090 1.370 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.390 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.007 0.165 4+-Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.015 0.034 0.049 0.024 0.025 0.049 1.222 1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: High Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019.

Inbound and outbound split source: High Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, October 2016, ITE. 3 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021).

Truck Mix Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage (2014).

Normalized % - With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2-Axle trucks, 11.0% 3-Axle trucks, 54.3% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily
1347
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 5 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter
TABLE 3: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (ACTUAL VEHICLES) Land Use Quantity2 Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Fulfillment Center Warehouse (75%) 464.969 TSF
Passenger Cars: 37 11 48 19 48 67 814
Internal Capture2 -7 -10 -17 -4 -5 -8 -82
Total Passenger Car: 30 1 31 15 43 59 732
2-4 axle Trucks: 3 1 4 1 4 5 76
5+-axle Trucks: 4 1 5 1 3 4 102
Total Truck: 7 2 9 2 7 9 178
Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Actual Vehicles) 37 3 40 17 50 68 910 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (25%) 154.990 TSF
Passenger Cars: 10 3 13 4 10 14 212
Internal Capture2 -2 -3 -5 -1 -1 -2 -28
Total Passenger Car: 8 0 8 3 9 12 184
2-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 1 1 2 40
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
4+-axle Trucks: 1 2 3 1 1 2 64
Total Truck: 1 3 4 2 2 4 118
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (Actual Vehicles) 9 3 12 5 11 16 302 Industrial Total Passenger Cars 38 1 39 18 52 71 916
Industrial Total Trucks (Actual Vehicles) 8 5 13 4 9 13 296 Industrial Total (Actual Vehicles) 46 6 52 22 61 84 1,212 Fast Casual Restaurant 16.200 TSF 12 12 23 112 91 203 1,574 Internal Capture2 -7 -6 -13 -11 -20 -31 -346
Pass-By (49% AM; 50% PM/Daily)3 -3 -3 -6 -36 -36 -71 -614 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Thru 1.600 TSF 70 67 137 31 31 62 854 Internal Capture2 -4 -3 -7 -6 -11 -17 -300
Pass-By (89% AM/PM/Daily)3 -57 -57 -114 -18 -18 -36 -494 Restaurant Total: 11 10 20 72 38 111 674
Strip Retail Plaza 16.200 TSF 23 15 38 53 53 106 884
Internal Capture2 -6 -4 -10 -31 -16 -47 -268
Pass-By (34% PM/Daily)3 0 0 0 -7 -7 -15 -210
Retail Total: 17 11 28 15 30 44 406
Commercial Total 28 21 48 87 67 155 1,080
Project Total Passenger Cars 66 22 87 105 119 224 1,996 Project Total Trucks (Actual Vehicles) 8 5 13 4 9 13 296 Project Total (Actual Vehicles) 74 27 100 109 128 237 2,292 1 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2017.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2 Internal capture calculated from NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. 1348
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 6 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter
As shown on Table 4, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 2,730 two-way PCE trips per day, with 122 AM PCE peak hour trips and 259 PM PCE peak hour trips.

TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (PCE) Land Use Quantity2 Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Fulfillment Center Warehouse (75%) 464.969 TSF
Passenger Cars: 37 11 48 19 48 67 814
Internal Capture2 -7 -10 -17 -4 -5 -8 -82
Total Passenger Car: 30 1 31 15 43 59 732
2-4 axle Trucks: 6 2 8 3 7 10 152
5+-axle Trucks: 12 4 16 4 10 14 304
Total Truck: 18 6 24 7 17 24 456
Fulfillment Center Warehouse (PCE) 48 7 55 22 60 83 1,188 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (25%) 154.990 TSF
Passenger Cars: 10 3 13 4 10 14 212
Internal Capture2 -2 -3 -5 -1 -1 -2 -28
Total Passenger Car: 8 0 8 3 9 12 184
2-axle Trucks: 1 2 3 1 1 2 62
3-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 1 0 1 26
4+-axle Trucks: 2 5 7 4 4 8 190
Total Truck: 3 8 11 6 5 11 278
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (PCE) 11 8 19 9 14 23 462 Industrial Total Passenger Cars 38 1 39 18 52 71 916
Industrial Total Trucks (PCE) 21 14 35 13 22 35 734
Industrial Total (PCE) 59 15 74 31 74 106 1,650
Fast Casual Restaurant 16.200 TSF 12 12 23 112 91 203 1,574 Internal Capture2 -7 -6 -13 -11 -20 -31 -346
Pass-By (49% AM; 50% PM/Daily)3 -3 -3 -6 -36 -36 -71 -614 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Thru 1.600 TSF 70 67 137 31 31 62 854 Internal Capture2 -4 -3 -7 -6 -11 -17 -300
Pass-By (89% AM/PM/Daily)3 -57 -57 -114 -18 -18 -36 -494 Restaurant Total: 11 10 20 72 38 111 674
Strip Retail Plaza 16.200 TSF 23 15 38 53 53 107 884
Internal Capture2 -6 -4 -10 -31 -16 -47 -266
Pass-By (34% PM/Daily)3 0 0 0 -8 -8 -15 -212
Retail Total: 17 11 28 15 30 45 406
Commercial Total 28 21 48 87 68 155 1,080
Project Total Passenger Cars 66 22 87 105 120 224 1,996 Project Total Trucks (Actual Vehicles) 21 14 35 13 22 35 734 Project Total (PCE) 87 36 122 118 142 259 2,730 1
TSF = thousand square feet
3 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2017.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2 Internal capture calculated from NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. 1349
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 7 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
As shown in Table 5, the development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,800 fewer two-way PCE trips per day with 318 fewer AM PCE peak hour trips and 239 fewer PM PCE peak hour trips as compared to the currently approved uses. The trip generation comparison has been performed for the PCE trips only as the peak hour intersection operations analysis conducted in the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study was based on PCE.

TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

Previously Approved Project
Passenger Cars: 265 68 333 108 301 409 3,400
Total Truck Trips: 34 8 42 8 28 36 444
Previously Approved Project Total 299 76 375 116 329 445 3,844 Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 66 22 87 105 119 224 1,996
Total Truck Trips: 8 5 13 4 9 13 296
Proposed Project Total 74 27 100 109 128 237 2,292
Comparison
Passenger Cars: -199 -46 -246 -3 -182 -185 -1,404
Total Truck Trips: -26 -3 -29 -4 -19 -23 -148
Comparison Total -225 -49 -275 -7 -201 -208 -1,552
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Previously Approved Project
Passenger Cars: 265 68 333 108 301 409 3,400
Total Truck Trips: 87 20 107 19 70 89 1,130
Previously Approved Project Total 352 88 440 127 371 498 4,530 Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 66 22 87 105 120 224 1,996
Total Truck Trips: 21 14 35 13 22 35 734
Proposed Project Total 87 36 122 118 142 259 2,730
Comparison
Passenger Cars: -199 -46 -246 -2 -182 -185 -1,404
Total Truck Trips: -66 -6 -72 -6 -48 -54 -396
Comparison Total -265 -52 -318 -8 -230 -239 -1,800
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1350
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 8 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter

TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern of passenger cars is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding land uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The trip distribution pattern for truck traffic is also influenced by the local truck routes. Given these differences, separate trip distributions were generated for both passenger cars and truck trips. The Project (industrial) passenger car and truck trip distribution patterns are graphically depicted on Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. Exhibit 5 shows the retail trip distribution patterns.

All distribution patterns are consistent with the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study.

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (E+P) CONDITIONS
Existing baseline traffic volumes are consistent with the SPA No. 5 Traffic study. Specifically, historic traffic count data was utilized in conjunction with an adjustment factor (2% per year, compounded annually) to establish a current baseline condition (as to not understate volumes that might be influenced by the pandemic). Project traffic was added to baseline volumes to develop E+P traffic volumes. Turning volumes shown are in PCE, but the ADT volumes are reflected in actual vehicles. E+P peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 6. As shown on Table 6, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for E+P traffic conditions consistent with the E+P results from the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study. Table 6 also shows the net change in the delays between the project evaluated in the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study and the currently proposed Project. The change in delay shows reductions to the anticipated E+P delays with the proposed Project.

Intersection operations worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are provided in Attachment B. 1351
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 9 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Long-range (horizon year) intersection improvements are noted in Table 7 and identifies whether the improvements are included in a pre-existing fee program (such as the City’s Development Impact Fee or County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs). If the improvement is not included in any pre-existing fee program, then it is assumed the Project would either construct the improvement or contribute its fair share towards the improvements needed to maintain acceptable LOS. Table 7 shows the fair share contribution identified previously in the SPA No. 5 Traffic Study and the Project’s fair share based on the currently proposed development. Detailed fair share calculations for the applicable intersection is shown on Table 8.

Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of
(secs.) Service (secs.) Service (secs.)

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 34.8 42.0 C D 25.6 34.4 C C -9.2 -7.6 2 Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 34.6 26.2 C C 25.2 23.4 C C -9.4 -2.8 3 Highland Springs Av. & 2nd St. TS 24.8 20.8 C C 23.5 19.8 C B -1.3 -1.0 4 Highland Springs Av. & 1st St./Sun Lakes Bl. TS 34.5 18.4 C B 28.6 17.1 C B -5.9 -1.3 5 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Dwy. 1 CSS 10.4 11.1 B B 9.6 10.0 A B -0.8 -1.1 6 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. CSS/TS4 16.7 15.7 C C 12.2 16.7 B B -4.5 1.0 7 Dwy. 2/Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. AWS/TS4 17.3 19.0 B B 19.6 19.4 B B 2.3 0.4 8 Dwy. 3 & Sun Lakes Bl. CSS 9.0 10.1 A B 8.7 8.9 A B -0.3 -1.2 9 Twin Hills Dr./Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. AWS 8.8 8.2 A A 8.6 8.2 A A -0.2 0.0 * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement 3 4 The Project will construct a traffic signal as part of the Project design features.

Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds.

Minimum acceptable LOS for each applicable jurisdiction.

Delay1
# Intersection
Traffic
Control2
E+P (SPA No. 5) E+P (Current Project)
1352
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 10 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO
TABLE 8: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS
2040 Without & With Project
1 Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Ramps Banning, Beaumont, Caltrans
Add SB free right turn lane No Fair Share 22.4% 9.0%
Add WB left turn lane No Fair Share
2 Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Ramps Banning, Beaumont, Caltrans
Add 2nd EB right turn lane No Fair Share 29.5% 13.1%
3 Highland Springs Av. & 2nd St. Banning, Beaumont Restripe the EB approach to provide dual left turn lanes and one shared through-right turn lane
No Fair Share 32.9% 15.1%
Modify the traffic signal to protect the eastbound and
westbound left turns and to implement lead-lag
operations for the eastbound and westbound left
turns, with the eastbound left turn running as lag
No Fair Share
4 Highland Springs Av. & 1st St./Sun Lakes Bl. Banning, Beaumont Add 2nd SB left turn lane No Fair Share 21.8% 8.5% Add 2nd WB through lane No Fair Share
6 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. Banning Install a Traffic Signal No Construct4 34.2% 11.8% 9 Twin Hills Dr./Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. Banning Install a Traffic Signal No Fair Share 6.7% 1.7% 1 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit. In lieu fee payment is at discretion of City. 2 Identifies the Project's responsibility to construct an improvement or contribute a fee payment or fair share towards the implementation of the improvements shown. 3 Represents the fair share percentage for the Project during the most impacted peak hour. 4 Project has committed to constructing the traffic signal located at Sun Lakes Village Drive at Sun Lakes Boulevard. # Intersection Location Jurisdiction
Analysis Scenarios Improvements in
Fee Program?1
Project
Responsibility2
Current Fair
Share %3
SPA No. 5 Traffic
Study Fair Share %3
# Intersection Existing Project
2040 With
Project
Total New
Traffic
Project Fair
Share1
1 Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Ramps
AM: 2,525 46 3,543 1,018 4.5%
PM: 3,106 94 4,155 1,049 9.0%
2 Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
AM: 2,821 90 4,092 1,271 7.1%
PM: 3,530 168 4,817 1,287 13.1%
3 Highland Springs Av. & 2nd St.

AM: 1,899 92 3,120 1,221 7.5%
PM: 1,801 175 2,963 1,162 15.1%
4 Highland Springs Av. & 1st St./Sun Lakes Bl.

AM: 1,437 107 3,338 1,901 5.6%
PM: 1,511 216 4,044 2,533 8.5%
6 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl.

AM: 613 107 1,698 1,085 9.9%
PM: 624 223 2,510 1,886 11.8%
9 Twin Hills Dr./Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl.

AM: 216 13 1,052 836 1.6%
PM: 245 35 2,281 2,036 1.7%
* Highest deficient peak hour represented in BOLD and shown on Table 7. 1353
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 8, 2022

Page 11 of 11 ends

13841-07 TA Letter

SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Site access recommendations for the Project driveways are shown on Exhibit 7 and are consistent with those recommended in the SPA No. 5, with the exception of the following:
• Driveway 2 improvements on Sun Lake Village Drive are no longer applicable as the driveway is no longer being proposed.
• The intersection of Sun Lakes Village Drive and Sun Lakes Boulevard will be signalized by the Project. In addition the existing landscaped median will be modified to accommodate a 150-foot eastbound left turn lane.
• Sun Lakes Village Drive will be widened to 54-feet of pavement in order to accommodate a 14-foot southbound right turn lane, 13-foot southbound left turn lane, 13-foot northbound through lane (providing access to the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center), and a 14-foot northbound right turn lane (providing access into the Project).
• Project will install a traffic signal and modify the existing landscaped median at Driveway 2/Country Club Drive in order to accommodate a 150-foot eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Driveway 2/Country Club Drive and Sun Lakes Boulevard.

A queuing analysis has been conducted for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions to determine the necessary turn pocket storage lengths shown on Exhibit 7. Queuing analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment C.

TRUCK ACCESS
Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at the Project driveway (Driveway 1) anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers (see Exhibit 8). As shown on Exhibit 8, the proposed curb radii at Driveway 1 and the intersection of Sun Lakes Village Drive at Sun Lakes Boulevard are anticipated to accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks as currently designed.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 861-0177.

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

Charlene So, PE
Associate Principal
1354
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
1355
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 2: STUDY AREA
1356
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 3: PROJECT (INDUSTRIAL PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1357
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 4: PROJECT (INDUSTRIAL TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1358
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT (RETAIL) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
1359
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 6: E+P TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PCE)
1360
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 7: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
1361
13841-07 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 8: TRUCK ACCESS
1362
13841-07 TA Letter
ATTACHMENT A:

EXCERPTS FROM SPA NO. 5 TRAFFIC STUDY
1363
Sun Lakes Village North
Specific Plan Amendment No.
5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CITY OF BANNING
PREPARED BY:

Aric Evatt, PTP
[email protected]
Charlene So, PE
[email protected]
Connor Paquin, PE
[email protected]
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020
12927-05 TA Report
1364
SUN LAKES BL.

SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.
(P) (RIRO) Dwy. 4
(P) (FULL) Dwy. 3 (PT) (FULL)
(P) (FULL)
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
N
12927 - land use plan.dwg URBAN
Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN
= FULL ACCESS
LEGEND:
= PASSENGER CARS ONLY
FULL
P
= RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS RIRO= PASSENGER CARS AND TRUCKS PT 2 1365
SUN LAKES BL. SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.
2ND ST.

Dwy. 4
Dwy. 3
INTERSTATE 10
COUNTRY CLUB DR.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
HIGHLAND SPRINGS AV.

COUNTRY CLUB DR.

TWIN HILLS DR.
1ST ST.

BEAUMONT

BANNING
N
12927 - locmap.dwg
Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Traffic Analysis URBAN
EXHIBIT 1-2: LOCATION MAP
= FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION
= EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION
LEGEND:
0 0
1 2
3 4
7 8
5 6
9 10
4 1366
SUN LAKES BL.

SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.

Dwy. 4
Dwy. 3 Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
N
12927 - recs.dwg URBAN
Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Traffic Analysis 100' 115'
150'
Sun Lakes Boulevard is an east‐west oriented roadway located on the Project’s southern boundary. According to the City of Banning Circulation Element, Sun Lakes Boulevard is currently built out to its ultimate half‐section. As such, there are no roadway improvement recommendations. However, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements are recommended, as needed for site access along the Project’s frontage, consistent with the City’s standards.

Sun Lakes Village Drive is a north‐south oriented roadway located on the Project’s western boundary. According to the City of BanningCirculation Element, Sun Lakes Village Drive is currently built out to itsultimate half‐section. As such, there are no roadway improvement recommendations. However, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements are recommended, as needed for site access along the Project’s frontage, consistent with the City’s standards.

On‐site traffic signing and striping should be
implemented agreeable with the provisions of the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction withdetailed construction plans for the Project site.

Sight distance at each project access point should
be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans
and City of Banning sight distance standards atthe time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS 150'
= NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL= STOP SIGN= STOP SIGN IMPROVEMENT= EXISTING LANE= LANE IMPROVEMENT LEGEND:
= MINIMUM TURN POCKET LENGTH 150'
= TURN POCKET LENGTH IMPROVEMENT
9 1367
Table 1-2
Existing (2020) E+P 2040 Without Project 2040 With Project 1 Highland Springs Av. & I‐10 WB Ramps Banning, Beaumont, Caltrans
None None Add SB free right turn lane Same No Fair Share 22.4% Add WB left turn lane Same No Fair Share
2 Highland Springs Av. & I‐10 EB Ramps Banning, Beaumont, Caltrans
None None Add 2nd EB right turn lane Same No Fair Share 29.5% 3 Highland Springs Av. & 2nd St. Banning, Beaumont None None Restripe the EB approach to provide dual left turn lanes and one shared through‐right turn lane
Same No Fair Share 32.9%
Modify the traffic signal to protect the eastbound and
westbound left turns and to implement lead‐lagoperations for the eastbound and westbound left turns,with the eastbound left turn running as lag Same No Fair Share
4 Highland Springs Av. & 1st St./Sun Lakes Bl. Banning, Beaumont None None Add 2nd SB left turn lane Same No Fair Share 21.8% Add 2nd WB through lane Same No Fair Share
7 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. Banning None None Install a Traffic Signal Same No Fair Share 34.2% 10 Twin Hills Dr./Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. Banning None None Install a Traffic Signal Same No Fair Share 6.7% 1 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit. In lieu fee payment is at discretion of City.2 Identifies the Project's responsibility to construct an improvement or contribute a fee payment or fair share towards the implementation of the improvements shown.3 Represents the fair share percentage for the Project during the most impacted peak hour.

Summary of Improvements by Analysis Scenario
# Intersection Location Jurisdiction Recommended Improvements 1 Improvements in Fee Program?1 Project Responsibility2 Fair Share %3
11 1368
Table 4‐1
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Industrial Park3 TSF 130 0.324 0.076 0.400 0.084 0.316 0.400 3.370

0.285 0.067 0.348 0.076 0.284 0.348 2.865

0.006 0.002 0.009 0.001 0.005 0.009 0.084

0.008 0.002 0.011 0.002 0.007 0.011 0.105

0.024 0.006 0.032 0.005 0.020 0.033 0.316
Industrial Park3 TSF 130 0.324 0.076 0.400 0.084 0.316 0.400 3.370

0.285 0.067 0.352 0.076 0.284 0.360 2.865

0.010 0.002 0.012 0.002 0.008 0.010 0.127

0.016 0.004 0.020 0.003 0.013 0.017 0.209

0.073 0.017 0.090 0.016 0.059 0.075 0.949
Medical‐Dental Office 720 TSF 2.168 0.612 2.780 0.969 2.491 3.460 34.800 Shopping Center 820 TSF 0.583 0.357 0.940 1.829 1.981 3.810 37.750 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Vehicle Mix Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook Supplement (2020), Appendix C.

Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.

Normalized % ‐ Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2‐Axle trucks, 20.7% 3‐Axle trucks, 62.6% 4‐Axle trucks. 4 PCE factors per SBCTA CMP: 2‐axle = 1.5; 3‐axle = 2.0; 4+‐axle = 3.0. 3‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0)
4‐Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0)
Passenger Cars
2‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5)
Passenger Cars (AM‐88.0%; PM‐90.0%; Daily‐85.0%)
2‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.00%; PM‐1.67%; Daily‐2.51%)
3‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.48%; PM‐2.07%; Daily‐3.11%)
4‐Axle+ Trucks (AM‐7.51%; PM‐6.26%; Daily‐9.39%)
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trip Generation Rates4
Trip Generation Rates
Daily
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
37 1369
Table 4‐2
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Industrial Park 877.298 TSF
Passenger Cars: 250 59 309 66 250 316 2,514
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 6 1 7 1 5 6 74
3‐axle: 7 2 9 2 6 8 92
4+‐axle: 21 5 26 5 17 22 278
‐ Truck Trips 34 8 42 8 28 36 444
284 67 351 74 278 352 2,958
Medical Office 52.065 TSF 113 32 145 50 130 180 1,812
Internal Capture ‐4 ‐7 ‐11 ‐1 ‐5 ‐6 ‐62
109 25 134 49 125 174 1,750
Commercial Retail 37.189 TSF 22 13 35 68 74 142 1,404
Internal Capture ‐7 ‐4 ‐11 ‐5 ‐1 ‐6 ‐60
Pass‐By (34% PM/Daily) 000 ‐21 ‐21 ‐43 ‐458
15 9 24 42 51 93 886
408 101 509 165 454 619 5,594
502 245 747 454 602 1,056 10,828
‐94 ‐144 ‐238 ‐289 ‐148 ‐437 ‐5,234 1
TSF = thousand square feet 2 TOTAL TRIPS = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

Industrial Park Subtotal
Office Subtotal
Retail Subtotal
TOTAL TRIPS (Actual Vehicles) 2
Total Trips from Previous Traffic Study
Net Difference in Trips
Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
38 1370
Table 4‐3
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Industrial Park 877.298 TSF
Passenger Cars: 250 59 309 66 250 316 2,514
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 9 2 11 2 7 9 112
3‐axle: 14 3 17 3 11 14 184
4+‐axle: 64 15 79 14 52 66 834
‐ Truck Trips 87 20 107 19 70 89 1,130
337 79 416 85 320 405 3,644
Medical Office 52.065 TSF 113 32 145 50 130 180 1,812
Internal Capture ‐4 ‐7 ‐11 ‐1 ‐5 ‐6 ‐62
109 25 134 49 125 174 1,750
Commercial Retail 37.189 TSF 22 13 35 68 74 142 1,404
Internal Capture ‐7 ‐4 ‐11 ‐5 ‐1 ‐6 ‐60
Pass‐By (34% PM/Daily) 000 ‐21 ‐21 ‐42 ‐458
15 9 24 42 51 93 886
461 113 574 176 496 672 6,280
502 245 747 454 602 1,056 10,828
‐41 ‐132 ‐173 ‐278 ‐106 ‐384 ‐4,548 1
TSF = thousand square feet 2 TOTAL TRIPS = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

TOTAL TRIPS (PCE) 2
Industrial Park Subtotal
Office Subtotal
Retail Subtotal
Total Trips from Previous Traffic Study
Net Difference in Trips
Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
39 1371
SUN LAKES BL. SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.

INTERSTATE 10
HIGHLAND SPRINGS AV.

COUNTRY CLUB DR.

TWIN HILLS DR.
2ND ST.
1ST ST.

Dwy. 2
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 3 COUNTRY CLUB DR.

BEAUMONT

BANNING
N
12927 - trip.dwg
Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Traffic Analysis URBAN
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (TRUCK) NEAR-TERM TRIP DISTRIBUTION 60 40
100
40 1372
SUN LAKES BL. SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.

INTERSTATE 10
HIGHLAND SPRINGS AV.

COUNTRY CLUB DR.

TWIN HILLS DR.
2ND ST.
1ST ST.

Dwy. 2
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 3 COUNTRY CLUB DR.

BEAUMONT

BANNING
SUN LAKES BL. SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.

Dwy. 4
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
= OUTBOUND
= INBOUND
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (INDUSTRIAL CAR) NEAR-TERM TRIP DISTRIBUTION 40 36
25 N
12927 - trip.dwg
Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Traffic Analysis URBAN
8 5
5 94
84 2
2 75
6 75
25 2
4 94
40 54
15 56
2 4
41 1373
SUN LAKES BL. SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.

INTERSTATE 10
HIGHLAND SPRINGS AV.

COUNTRY CLUB DR.

TWIN HILLS DR.
2ND ST.
1ST ST.

Dwy. 2
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 3 COUNTRY CLUB DR.

BEAUMONT

BANNING
SUN LAKES BL. SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.

Dwy. 4
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT (RETAIL/MEDICAL OFFICE) NEAR-TERM TRIP DISTRIBUTION 25 20
10 N
12927 - trip.dwg
Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Traffic Analysis URBAN
5 10
15 8
12 10
80 53
15 35
5 15 80
65 5 58
55 70
15 75
5 LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
= OUTBOUND
= INBOUND
5 10
42 1374
SUN LAKES BL.

SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.
2ND ST.

Dwy. 4
Dwy. 3
INTERSTATE 10
COUNTRY CLUB DR.
1 2
3 4
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
HIGHLAND SPRINGS AV.

COUNTRY CLUB DR.

TWIN HILLS DR.
1ST ST.
10 7 8 9
6 5

BEAUMONT

BANNING
N
12927 - vols.dwg
Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Traffic Analysis URBAN
1 Highland Springs Av.
& I-10 WB Ramps 2 Highland Springs Av.& I-10 EB Ramps 3 Highland Springs Av.& 2nd St. 4 Highland Springs Av. & 1st St./Sun Lakes Bl. 5 Sun Lakes Village Dr.
& Dwy. 1
6 Sun Lakes Village Dr.
& Dwy. 2 7 Sun Lakes Village Dr.& Sun Lakes Bl. 8 Dwy. 3/ Country Club Dr. &
Sun Lakes Bl.
9 Dwy. 4 &
Sun Lakes Bl. 10 Twin Hills Dr./
Country Club Dr. &
Sun Lakes Bl.

EXHIBIT 4-7: PROJECT (NEAR-TERM) ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE) 17(10)
0(0)0(0)
0(0)0(0)0(0)
0(0)
3(14)
5(23)
0(0)
11(6)
0(0)
0(0)0(0)
25(12)
0(0)0(0)369(127)
0(0)
27(14)
0(0)
6(30)
7(34)
89(382)
2(9)
88(373)
0(0)
0(0)363(123)0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
6(5)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
35(135)4(15)
206(59)
216(95)
68(311)
0(0)
44(186)
7(34)
0(0)30(13)
150(50)
0(0)
0(0)
52(220)36(153)
180(62)0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
183(61)
0(0)
187(45)
0(0)0(0)
35(133)
0(0)
187(45)
19(14)
35(133)0(0)
3(18)
0(0)
56(250)
7(36)
6(4)
22(13)
0(0)
11(6)
0(0)
12(64)2(9)5(44)
216(113)
2(0)
1(5)
0(0)
56(247)
6(7)

0.4 2.5 0.4

0.2 0.5

0.4 0.2

5.6 0.4

0.1 3.5 1.7

1.2 0.9

0.9 1.2

4.6 4.8

2.3 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
LEGEND:

10.0 10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 3.3 1.6

0.3 2.0

0.5 2.0
47 1375
SUN LAKES BL.

SUN LAKES VILLAGE DR.
2ND ST.

Dwy. 4
Dwy. 3
INTERSTATE 10
COUNTRY CLUB DR.
1 2
3 4
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
HIGHLAND SPRINGS AV.

COUNTRY CLUB DR.

TWIN HILLS DR.
1ST ST.
10 7 8 9
6 5

BEAUMONT

EXHIBIT 5-1: E+P TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE)
117(77)
11(17)
4(4)
7(2)10(12)4(0)
2(5)
24(44)
28(99)
6(4)
37(31)
2(2)
64(58)
259(224)
39(36)
107(177)254(234)588(301)
124(230)
96(111)
74(40)
18(60)
59(137)
278(503)
44(50)
596(855)
15(15)
354(341)732(476)160(158)
42(309)
318(9)
15(34)
29(14)
19(18)
34(33)
51(212)20(56)
342(117)
381(331)
305(488)
43(35)
339(524)
701(1006)
367(313)812(839)
222(390)
158(10)
158(307)
747(1204)
428(653)
975(1101)209(126)
293(326)
0(3)
621(612)
152(94)187(45)
27(118)0(0)
35(133)
0(0)
339(139)
19(14)
62(251)0(0)
3(18)
0(0)
56(250)
76(173)
150(120)
22(13)
113(99)
11(6)
7(7)
12(64)2(9)5(44)
216(113)
79(135)
104(147)
10(7)
223(360)
6(7)

33.2 36.1 27.4 20.5 8.7

1.1 3.3

2.8 0.5

3.6 13.0 10.0

10.3 3.3

10.1 5.3

10.1 9.5

9.8 13.1

46.3 17.4

5.1 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
LEGEND:

10.0 10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 3.3 1.6

0.3 2.0

3.9 4.8

2.9 52
1376
Table 5‐1
Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of
(secs.) Service (secs.) Service

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Highland Springs Av. & I‐10 WB Ramps TS 23.5 31.5 C C 34.8 42.0 C D D 2 Highland Springs Av. & I‐10 EB Ramps TS 23.4 21.5 C C 34.6 26.2 C C D 3 Highland Springs Av. & 2nd St. TS 23.4 19.5 C B 24.8 20.8 C C C 4 Highland Springs Av. & 1st St./Sun Lakes Bl. TS 25.1 15.4 C B 34.5 18.4 C B C 5 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Dwy. 1 CSS 10.4 11.1 B B C
6 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Dwy. 2 CSS 11.3 11.4 B B C
7 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. CSS 12.1 10.5 B B 16.7 15.7 C C C 8 Dwy. 3/Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. AWS/TS4 8.7 8.2 A A 17.3 19.0 B B C 9 Dwy. 4 & Sun Lakes Bl. CSS 9.0 10.1 A B C
10 Twin Hills Dr./Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl. AWS 8.6 8.0 A A 8.8 8.2 A A C * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement 3 4 The Project will construct a traffic signal as part of the Project design features.

Minimum acceptable LOS for each applicable jurisdiction.

Intersection Analysis for E+P Conditions
# Intersection
Traffic
Control2
Existing (2020) E+P
Acceptable
LOS3
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
54 1377
Table 7‐1
# Intersection Existing Project 2040 With
Project
Total New
Traffic
Project Fair
Share1
1 Highland Springs Av. & I‐10 WB Ramps
AM: 2,525 212 3,709 1,184 17.9%
PM: 3,106 276 4,337 1,231 22.4%
2 Highland Springs Av. & I‐10 EB Ramps
AM: 2,821 427 4,429 1,608 26.6%
PM: 3,530 469 5,118 1,588 29.5%
3 Highland Springs Av. & 2nd St.

AM: 1,899 435 3,463 1,564 27.8%
PM: 1,801 483 3,271 1,470 32.9%
4 Highland Springs Av. & 1st St./Sun Lakes Bl.

AM: 1,437 500 3,731 2,294 21.8%
PM: 1,511 573 4,401 2,890 19.8%
7 Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl.

AM: 613 508 2,099 1,486 34.2%
PM: 624 602 2,889 2,265 26.6%
10 Twin Hills Dr./Country Club Dr. & Sun Lakes Bl.

AM: 216 59 1,098 882 6.7%
PM: 245 80 2,326 2,081 3.8%
* Highest deficient peak hour represented in BOLD and shown on Table 1‐2.

Project Fair Share Calculations
69 1378
13841-07 TA Letter
ATTACHMENT B:

E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
1379
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
1: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Off Ramp/I-10 WB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 36 158 309 696 787 367
Future Volume (vph) 36 158 309 696 787 367
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Detector Phase 885266
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 33.0 33.0 40.0 87.0 47.0 47.0
Total Split (%) 27.5% 27.5% 33.3% 72.5% 39.2% 39.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 113.9
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Off Ramp/I-10 WB On Ramp 1380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 1: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Off Ramp/I-10 WB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 222 36 158 309 696 0 0 787 367 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 222 36 158 309 696 0 0 787 367 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 244 40 174 340 765 0 0 865 403
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000
Cap, veh/h 285 47 293 378 2662 0 64 1764 775
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1565 257 1610 1810 3705 0 713 3610 1586 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 284 0 174 340 765 0 0 865 403
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1822 0 1610 1810 1805 0 713 1805 1586 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.9 0.0 11.1 20.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 18.0 19.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.9 0.0 11.1 20.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 18.0 19.5 Prop In Lane 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 332 0 293 378 2662 0 64 1764 775 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.59 0.90 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 464 0 410 574 2662 0 64 1764 775
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.3 0.0 42.0 43.1 4.9 0.0 0.0 19.2 19.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.8 0.0 1.9 12.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.3 0.0 4.4 10.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.1 0.0 43.9 55.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 20.2 22.1 LnGrp LOS E A D EAAACC
Approach Vol, veh/h 458 1105 1268
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.9 20.6 20.8
Approach LOS D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 87.0 27.8 59.2 24.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.5 35.5 42.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 22.5 21.5 18.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.5 0.9 8.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6
HCM 6th LOS C
1381
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
2: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Off Ramp/I-10 EB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 473 711 402 209 828
Future Volume (vph) 0 473 711 402 209 828
Turn Type NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 442216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.7 21.7 23.1 23.1 9.6 22.7
Total Split (s) 49.2 49.2 40.8 40.8 30.0 70.8
Total Split (%) 41.0% 41.0% 34.0% 34.0% 25.0% 59.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.7
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.7 4.7 5.1 5.1 4.6 4.7
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Max Max None Max
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 110.7
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Off Ramp/I-10 EB On Ramp 1382
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 2: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Off Ramp/I-10 EB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 293 0 473 0 0 0 0 711 402 209 828 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 293 0 473 0 0 0 0 711 402 209 828 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 322 0 394 0 781 333 230 910 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 000000
Cap, veh/h 508 0 452 0 1579 703 263 2262 0
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.63 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 0 1610 0 3705 1607 1810 3705 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 322 0 394 0 781 333 230 910 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1610 0 1805 1607 1810 1805 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.4 0.0 24.6 0.0 16.4 15.5 13.1 13.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.4 0.0 24.6 0.0 16.4 15.5 13.1 13.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 508 0 452 0 1579 703 263 2262 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.49 0.47 0.87 0.40 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 763 0 679 0 1579 703 436 2262 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.2 0.0 36.2 0.0 21.3 21.0 44.1 9.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 8.2 0.0 1.1 2.3 5.7 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 6.9 6.1 6.3 5.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.5 0.0 44.3 0.0 22.4 23.3 49.8 10.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A C C D B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 716 1114 1140
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.9 22.7 18.3
Approach LOS D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.9 51.3 34.3 71.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.1 * 4.7 * 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.4 35.7 * 45 * 66
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 18.4 26.6 15.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 6.1 3.0 8.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1383
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
3: Highland Springs Av. & 2nd Street 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 318 29 19 43 534 160 437
Future Volume (vph) 42 318 29 19 43 534 160 437
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 44885216
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 44885216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 40.1 40.1 36.1 36.1 9.6 23.1 9.6 32.1 Total Split (s) 40.1 40.1 36.1 36.1 10.4 23.5 20.3 33.4 Total Split (%) 33.4% 33.4% 30.1% 30.1% 8.7% 19.6% 16.9% 27.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.6 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.6 5.1 4.6 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None None
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 78.8
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Highland Springs Av. & 2nd Street 1384
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 3: Highland Springs Av. & 2nd Street 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 318 10 29 19 34 43 534 15 160 437 354 Future Volume (veh/h) 42 318 10 29 19 34 43 534 15 160 437 354 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 353 9 32 21 29 48 593 13 178 486 293 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 890 454 12 220 88 121 82 993 22 224 929 433
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3619 1845 47 1810 723 998 1810 5223 114 1810 3458 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 0 362 32 0 50 48 392 214 178 486 293 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1892 1810 0 1720 1810 1729 1879 1810 1729 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 11.1 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 6.5 6.5 6.0 7.5 10.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 11.1 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 6.5 6.5 6.0 7.5 10.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 890 0 465 220 0 209 82 657 357 224 929 433 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.00 0.78 0.15 0.00 0.24 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.79 0.52 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2028 0 1060 898 0 854 168 1019 554 455 1567 729 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.0 0.0 22.0 24.5 0.0 24.8 29.2 23.1 23.1 26.6 19.4 20.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.3 0.0 0.6 2.5 0.9 1.6 2.4 0.5 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 4.8 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.8 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.0 0.0 24.8 24.8 0.0 25.4 31.7 24.0 24.7 29.0 19.9 22.3 LnGrp LOS B A C C A CCCCCBC
Approach Vol, veh/h 409 82 654 957
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.0 25.2 24.8 22.3
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 17.0 20.5 7.4 21.9 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.1 5.1 4.6 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.7 18.4 35.0 5.8 28.3 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 8.5 13.1 3.6 12.2 3.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.6 2.2 0.0 4.6 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 1385
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
4: Highland Springs Av. & 1st Street/Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 74 14 55 216 64 259 288 254 107 Future Volume (vph) 124 74 14 55 216 64 259 288 254 107 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Free Prot NA Prot NA Free
Protected Phases 4 8 5216
Permitted Phases 4 8 Free Free
Detector Phase 4488 5216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 30.8 30.8 27.1 27.1 9.6 29.1 9.6 28.1 Total Split (s) 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 22.0 29.2 60.0 67.2 Total Split (%) 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 18.3% 24.3% 50.0% 56.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.6 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.8 5.8 5.1 5.1 4.6 5.1 4.6 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None Max None Max
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 101.6
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Highland Springs Av. & 1st Street/Sun Lakes Blvd. 1386
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 4: Highland Springs Av. & 1st Street/Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 74 74 14 55 216 64 259 19 288 254 107 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 74 74 14 55 216 64 259 19 288 254 107 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 149 89 65 17 66 0 77 312 11 347 306 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 255 341 229 228 313 100 1662 58 384 2253
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.47 0.47 0.21 0.62 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1357 2068 1387 1252 1900 1610 1810 3557 125 1810 3610 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 149 77 77 17 66 0 77 158 165 347 306 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1357 1805 1650 1252 1900 1610 1810 1805 1877 1810 1805 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.6 3.7 4.1 1.2 3.0 0.0 4.2 5.1 5.1 18.6 3.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.6 3.7 4.1 5.3 3.0 0.0 4.2 5.1 5.1 18.6 3.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 255 298 272 228 313 100 843 877 384 2253 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.26 0.28 0.07 0.21 0.77 0.19 0.19 0.90 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 372 453 415 344 491 316 843 877 1007 2253 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 36.2 36.4 38.7 35.9 0.0 46.4 15.5 15.5 38.2 7.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.5 0.5 3.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 1.6 1.6 0.4 1.4 0.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 8.4 1.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.9 36.7 37.0 38.8 36.3 0.0 51.1 16.0 16.0 41.5 7.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS DDDDD DBBDA
Approach Vol, veh/h 303 83 A 400 653 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.3 36.8 22.7 25.7
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.7 51.6 22.2 10.1 67.2 22.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.1 5.8 4.6 5.1 * 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.4 24.1 25.0 17.4 62.1 * 26 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.6 7.1 15.6 6.2 5.5 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 1.6 0.8 0.1 2.1 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 1387
HCM 6th TWSC Banning Point (JN 13841)
5: Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Driveway 1 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 0 152 40 0 27
Future Vol, veh/h 16 0 152 40 0 27
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00000
Mvmt Flow 17 0 165 43 0 29
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 194 165 0 0 208 0
Stage 1 165 -----
Stage 2 29 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 799 885 - - 1375 -
Stage 1 869 -----
Stage 2 999 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 799 885 - - 1375 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 799 -----
Stage 1 869 -----
Stage 2 999 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 799 1375 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.022 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
1388
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
6: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 176 204 252 16 32
Future Volume (vph) 176 204 252 16 32
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5264
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 52644
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.6 15.0 27.0 31.6 31.6
Total Split (s) 16.0 43.4 27.4 31.6 31.6
Total Split (%) 21.3% 57.9% 36.5% 42.1% 42.1%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min Min
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 75
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.5
Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr. 1389
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 6: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 176 204 252 43 16 32
Future Volume (veh/h) 176 204 252 43 16 32
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 229 265 327 56 21 42
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000
Cap, veh/h 291 2692 757 128 444 395
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.52 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5358 3183 523 1810 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 229 265 190 193 21 42
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1805 1806 1810 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 1.1 3.6 3.7 0.4 0.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 1.1 3.6 3.7 0.4 0.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 291 2692 443 443 444 395
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.10 0.43 0.44 0.05 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 506 4887 992 993 1199 1067
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.4 5.0 13.0 13.0 11.7 11.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.2 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.2 5.0 13.6 13.7 11.8 12.0
LnGrp LOS BABBBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 494 383 63
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.1 13.7 11.9
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 14.6 11.2 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.4 27.0 11.4 22.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.8 7.0 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.8 0.1 0.1 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
1390
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
7: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 16 103 10 114 113 2 64 1
Future Volume (vph) 100 16 103 10 114 113 2 64 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Split NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3822 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 744382266
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 26.7 26.7 9.6 26.7 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 Total Split (s) 33.0 51.0 51.0 10.0 28.0 31.9 31.9 27.1 27.1 Total Split (%) 27.5% 42.5% 42.5% 8.3% 23.3% 26.6% 26.6% 22.6% 22.6% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min None None None None
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 64.9
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd. 1391
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 7: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 16 103 10 114 62 113 2 7 64 1 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 16 103 10 114 62 113 2 7 64 1 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 22 139 14 154 67 153 2 9 70 1 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.92 0.74 0.92 0.74 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 143 487 826 32 484 202 318 53 238 140 2 148
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 3220 1810 2484 1035 1810 301 1355 822 12 869 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 22 139 14 110 111 153 0 11 145 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1610 1810 1805 1714 1810 0 1656 1703 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.4 1.7 0.4 2.7 2.9 3.9 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.4 1.7 0.4 2.7 2.9 3.9 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.82 0.48 0.51
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 143 487 826 32 352 334 318 0 291 290 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.05 0.17 0.44 0.31 0.33 0.48 0.00 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1001 1714 2904 190 819 778 945 0 865 730 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 14.4 14.8 25.0 17.7 17.8 19.0 0.0 17.5 19.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.3 14.4 14.9 28.5 18.2 18.4 20.2 0.0 17.6 20.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C A B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 270 235 164 145
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.5 18.9 20.0 20.7
Approach LOS B B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 5.5 17.9 13.8 8.7 14.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.1 4.6 * 4.7 5.1 4.6 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.8 5.4 * 46 22.0 28.4 * 23 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 2.4 3.7 6.0 5.0 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1392
HCM 6th TWSC Banning Point (JN 13841)
8: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Driveway 4 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 14
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 72 145 4 0 8
Future Vol, veh/h 0 72 145 4 0 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 180 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00000
Mvmt Flow 0 78 158 4 0 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 162 0 - 0 199 81
Stage 1 - - - - 160 -
Stage 2 - - - - 39 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.9
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1429 - - - 777 969
Stage 1 - - - - 858 -
Stage 2 - - - - 984 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1429 - - - 777 969
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 762 -
Stage 1 - - - - 858 -
Stage 2 - - - - 984 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.7

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1429 - - - 969
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0.009
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
1393
HCM 6th AWSC Banning Point (JN 13841)
9: Country Club Dr. E/Twin HIlls Dr & Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 15
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 22 25 6 28 2 104 11 4 4 10 7
Future Vol, veh/h 2 22 25 6 28 2 104 11 4 4 10 7
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 000000000000
Mvmt Flow 3 29 33 8 37 3 139 15 5 5 13 9
Number of Lanes 120120110010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 3312
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1233
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2133
HCM Control Delay 7.8 8.1 9.2 7.9

HCM LOS AAAA

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 19%
Vol Thru, % 0% 73% 0% 100% 23% 0% 100% 82% 48%
Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 0% 77% 0% 0% 18% 33%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 104 15 2 15 32 6 19 11 21
LT Vol 104 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 4
Through Vol 0 11 0 15 7 0 19 9 10
RT Vol 0 4 0 0 25 0 0 2 7
Lane Flow Rate 139 20 3 20 43 8 25 15 28
Geometry Grp 888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.206 0.026 0.004 0.028 0.055 0.013 0.036 0.021 0.039 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.347 4.661 5.669 5.166 4.622 5.694 5.191 5.067 4.995 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 673 770 633 694 776 630 691 708 718
Service Time 3.065 2.379 3.389 2.886 2.342 3.415 2.912 2.788 2.718 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.207 0.026 0.005 0.029 0.055 0.013 0.036 0.021 0.039 HCM Control Delay 9.5 7.5 8.4 8 7.6 8.5 8.1 7.9 7.9
HCM Lane LOS AAAAAAAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1
1394
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
1: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Off Ramp/I-10 WB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 307 389 982 834 313
Future Volume (vph) 10 307 389 982 834 313
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Detector Phase 885266
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 33.0 33.0 40.0 87.0 47.0 47.0
Total Split (%) 27.5% 27.5% 33.3% 72.5% 39.2% 39.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 119
Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Off Ramp/I-10 WB On Ramp 1395
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 1: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 WB Off Ramp/I-10 WB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 369 10 307 389 982 0 0 834 313 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 369 10 307 389 982 0 0 834 313 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 0 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 380 10 316 401 1012 0 0 860 323
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000
Cap, veh/h 409 11 373 434 2500 0 0 1497 657
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1765 46 1610 1810 3705 0 0 3705 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 390 0 316 401 1012 0 0 860 323
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1812 0 1610 1810 1805 0 0 1805 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.1 0.0 22.3 25.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 21.8 17.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 0.0 22.3 25.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 21.8 17.8 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 420 0 373 434 2500 0 0 1497 657
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.00 0.85 0.92 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 433 0 385 539 2500 0 0 1497 657
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.8 0.0 43.7 44.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 26.8 25.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.9 0.0 15.6 19.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.9 0.0 10.2 13.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 9.6 7.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.7 0.0 59.3 63.4 8.3 0.0 0.0 28.4 28.2 LnGrp LOS EAEEAAACC
Approach Vol, veh/h 706 1413 1183
Approach Delay, s/veh 65.6 23.9 28.4
Approach LOS E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 87.0 33.1 53.9 32.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.5 35.5 42.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.3 27.8 23.8 27.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.7 0.8 7.2 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.4
HCM 6th LOS C
1396
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
2: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Off Ramp/I-10 EB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 588 1045 541 126 1076
Future Volume (vph) 3 588 1045 541 126 1076
Turn Type NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 442216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.7 21.7 23.1 23.1 9.6 22.7
Total Split (s) 53.0 53.0 49.0 49.0 18.0 67.0
Total Split (%) 44.2% 44.2% 40.8% 40.8% 15.0% 55.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.7
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.7 4.7 5.1 5.1 4.6 4.7
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Max Max None Max
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 116.3
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Off Ramp/I-10 EB On Ramp 1397
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 2: Highland Springs Av. & I-10 EB Off Ramp/I-10 EB On Ramp 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 326 3 588 0000 1045 541 126 1076 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 326 3 588 0000 1045 541 126 1076 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 340 3 416 0 1089 419 131 1121 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 000000
Cap, veh/h 533 5 478 0 1709 761 161 2193 0
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.09 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1794 16 1610 0 3705 1607 1810 3705 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 343 0 416 0 1089 419 131 1121 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1610 0 1805 1607 1810 1805 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.9 0.0 25.1 0.0 23.3 19.0 7.3 18.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.9 0.0 25.1 0.0 23.3 19.0 7.3 18.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 538 0 478 0 1709 761 161 2193 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.64 0.55 0.81 0.51 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 852 0 758 0 1709 761 236 2193 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.3 0.0 34.2 0.0 20.4 19.2 45.9 11.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 6.6 0.0 1.8 2.9 8.0 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.2 0.0 10.1 0.0 9.7 7.4 3.6 7.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 0.0 40.8 0.0 22.2 22.1 53.9 12.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A C C D B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 759 1508 1252
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.0 22.2 16.7
Approach LOS D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 53.7 35.2 67.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.1 * 4.7 * 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.4 43.9 * 48 * 62
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 25.3 27.1 20.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.1 3.4 10.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1398
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
3: Highland Springs Av. & 2nd Street 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 309 9 14 18 44 584 158 427
Future Volume (vph) 309 9 14 18 44 584 158 427
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 44885216
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 44885216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 40.1 40.1 36.1 36.1 9.6 23.1 9.6 32.1 Total Split (s) 40.1 40.1 36.1 36.1 10.3 23.5 20.3 33.5 Total Split (%) 33.4% 33.4% 30.1% 30.1% 8.6% 19.6% 16.9% 27.9% Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.6 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.6 5.1 4.6 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None Min None Min
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 66.1
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Highland Springs Av. & 2nd Street 1399
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 3: Highland Springs Av. & 2nd Street 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 309 9 33 14 18 33 44 584 15 158 427 341 Future Volume (veh/h) 309 9 33 14 18 33 44 584 15 158 427 341 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 301 74 26 16 20 28 49 656 13 178 480 293 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 668 248 87 207 82 115 87 1084 21 228 984 458 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3619 1343 472 1810 716 1003 1810 5236 104 1810 3458 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 301 0 100 16 0 48 49 433 236 178 480 293 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1815 1810 0 1719 1810 1729 1881 1810 1729 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 2.6 0.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 6.1 6.2 5.2 6.2 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 2.6 0.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 6.1 6.2 5.2 6.2 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 668 0 335 207 0 196 87 716 390 228 984 458 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.30 0.08 0.00 0.24 0.56 0.60 0.61 0.78 0.49 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2344 0 1176 1038 0 987 191 1178 641 526 1818 846 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.6 0.0 19.0 21.4 0.0 21.8 25.2 19.4 19.4 22.9 16.1 16.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 2.1 0.8 1.5 2.2 0.4 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.1 0.0 19.5 21.5 0.0 22.4 27.3 20.2 21.0 25.1 16.4 18.4 LnGrp LOS C A B C A CCCCCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 401 64 718 951
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 22.2 21.0 18.7
Approach LOS B C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 16.3 15.1 7.2 20.5 11.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.1 5.1 4.6 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.7 18.4 35.0 5.7 28.4 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 8.2 6.0 3.4 10.6 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.0 1.6 0.0 4.8 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 1400
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
4: Highland Springs Av. & 1st Street/Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 230 108 39 114 226 58 224 253 234 177 Future Volume (vph) 230 108 39 114 226 58 224 253 234 177 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Free Prot NA Prot NA Free
Protected Phases 4 8 5216
Permitted Phases 4 8 Free Free
Detector Phase 4488 5216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 30.8 30.8 27.1 27.1 9.6 29.1 9.6 28.1 Total Split (s) 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 17.0 35.0 32.0 50.0 Total Split (%) 44.2% 44.2% 44.2% 44.2% 14.2% 29.2% 26.7% 41.7% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.6 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.8 5.8 5.1 5.1 4.6 5.1 4.6 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None Min None Min
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 63.1
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Highland Springs Av. & 1st Street/Sun Lakes Blvd. 1401
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 4: Highland Springs Av. & 1st Street/Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 230 108 40 39 114 226 58 224 34 253 234 177 Future Volume (veh/h) 230 108 40 39 114 226 58 224 34 253 234 177 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 256 120 33 43 127 0 64 249 31 281 260 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 471 864 230 486 582 106 637 78 346 1191
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.33 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1284 2820 750 1254 1900 1610 1810 3235 398 1810 3610 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 256 75 78 43 127 0 64 138 142 281 260 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1284 1805 1765 1254 1900 1610 1810 1805 1828 1810 1805 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 1.5 1.6 1.3 2.5 0.0 1.8 3.4 3.4 7.5 2.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 1.5 1.6 2.9 2.5 0.0 1.8 3.4 3.4 7.5 2.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 471 553 541 486 582 106 356 360 346 1191 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.22 0.60 0.39 0.40 0.81 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1271 1678 1641 1285 1793 442 1063 1077 977 3193 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.5 12.7 12.8 13.8 13.1 0.0 23.3 17.7 17.8 19.6 12.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.7 0.7 1.8 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.7 1.3 1.3 2.9 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.5 12.9 12.9 13.9 13.3 0.0 25.4 18.4 18.5 21.4 12.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS BBBBB CBBCB
Approach Vol, veh/h 409 170 A 344 541 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.4 13.4 19.7 17.1
Approach LOS BBBB
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 15.1 21.4 7.6 21.8 21.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.1 5.8 4.6 5.1 * 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.4 29.9 47.2 12.4 44.9 * 48 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 5.4 13.9 3.8 4.6 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.5 1.6 0.0 1.7 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 1402
HCM 6th TWSC Banning Point (JN 13841)
5: Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Driveway 1 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 0 94 33 0 118
Future Vol, veh/h 42 0 94 33 0 118
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00000
Mvmt Flow 46 0 102 36 0 128
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 230 102 0 0 138 0
Stage 1 102 -----
Stage 2 128 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 763 959 - - 1458 -
Stage 1 927 -----
Stage 2 903 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 763 959 - - 1458 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 763 -----
Stage 1 927 -----
Stage 2 903 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 763 1458 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.06 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0 -
1403
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
6: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 91 302 264 44
Future Volume (vph) 91 302 264 44
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot
Protected Phases 5264
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 5264
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.6 15.0 27.0 31.6
Total Split (s) 11.0 38.4 27.4 31.6
Total Split (%) 15.7% 54.9% 39.1% 45.1%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Max
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 58
Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr. 1404
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 6: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 91 302 264 35 44 116
Future Volume (veh/h) 91 302 264 35 44 116
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 94 311 272 36 45 120
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000
Cap, veh/h 125 1736 583 76 221 589
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.33 0.18 0.18 0.49 0.49
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5358 3304 420 450 1201
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 94 311 152 156 166 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1805 1824 1661 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 2.3 4.1 4.2 3.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 2.3 4.1 4.2 3.1 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 0.27 0.72
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 1736 328 332 815 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.18 0.46 0.47 0.20 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 211 3149 735 743 815 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 13.0 20.1 20.1 7.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.8 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.5 13.0 21.1 21.2 8.5 0.0
LnGrp LOS C B C C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 405 308 166
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.6 21.2 8.5
Approach LOS B C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 31.6 8.4 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.4 27.0 6.4 22.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 5.1 4.8 6.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.5 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 1405
Timings Banning Point (JN 13841)
7: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 127 76 143 7 115 99 5 71 3
Future Volume (vph) 127 76 143 7 115 99 5 71 3
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Split NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3822 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 744382266
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 26.7 26.7 9.6 26.7 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 Total Split (s) 24.0 44.0 44.0 11.0 31.0 35.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 20.0% 36.7% 36.7% 9.2% 25.8% 29.2% 29.2% 25.0% 25.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min None None None None
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 64.9
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd. 1406
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Banning Point (JN 13841) 7: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 127 76 143 7 115 65 99 5 7 71 3 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 127 76 143 7 115 65 99 5 7 71 3 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 85 161 8 129 71 111 5 8 77 3 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 180 533 904 19 440 228 289 105 168 134 5 160 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 3220 1810 2297 1193 1810 658 1053 760 30 908 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 85 161 8 100 100 111 0 13 172 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1610 1810 1805 1685 1810 0 1711 1698 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 1.8 2.0 0.2 2.5 2.7 2.9 0.0 0.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 1.8 2.0 0.2 2.5 2.7 2.9 0.0 0.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.62 0.45 0.53
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 533 904 19 346 323 289 0 273 298 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.16 0.18 0.42 0.29 0.31 0.38 0.00 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 1430 2423 222 909 849 1036 0 979 810 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 14.1 14.2 25.7 18.1 18.1 19.6 0.0 18.6 19.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.1 0.1 5.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.5 14.3 14.3 31.1 18.5 18.7 20.5 0.0 18.6 21.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C A B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 384 208 124 172
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.3 19.1 20.3 21.5
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 5.1 19.4 14.3 9.8 14.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.1 4.6 * 4.7 5.1 4.6 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.9 6.4 * 39 24.9 19.4 * 26 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 2.2 4.0 6.9 5.9 4.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.1 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1407
HCM 6th TWSC Banning Point (JN 13841)
8: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Driveway 4 02/04/2022
E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 14
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 149 120 9 0 63
Future Vol, veh/h 0 149 120 9 0 63
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 180 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00000
Mvmt Flow 0 162 130 10 0 68
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 140 0 - 0 216 70
Stage 1 - - - - 135 -
Stage 2 - - - - 81 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.9
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1456 - - - 758 985
Stage 1 - - - - 883 -
Stage 2 - - - - 939 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1456 - - - 758 985
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 759 -
Stage 1 - - - - 883 -
Stage 2 - - - - 939 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.9

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1456 - - - 985
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0.07
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 8.9
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2
1408
HCM 6th AWSC Banning Point (JN 13841)
9: Country Club Dr. E/Twin HIlls Dr & Sun Lakes Blvd. 02/04/2022 E+P Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 15
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 34 84 4 30 2 76 17 4 0 12 2
Future Vol, veh/h 5 34 84 4 30 2 76 17 4 0 12 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 000000000000
Mvmt Flow 6 38 94 4 34 2 85 19 4 0 13 2
Number of Lanes 120120110010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 3 3 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 3 3
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 3 3
HCM Control Delay 7.8 8 8.7 7.9

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 81% 0% 100% 12% 0% 100% 83% 86%
Vol Right, % 0% 19% 0% 0% 88% 0% 0% 17% 14%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 76 21 5 23 95 4 20 12 14
LT Vol 76 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0
Through Vol 0 17 0 23 11 0 20 10 12
RT Vol 0 4 0 0 84 0 0 2 2
Lane Flow Rate 85 24 6 25 107 4 22 13 16
Geometry Grp 888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.13 0.032 0.009 0.035 0.129 0.007 0.032 0.019 0.022 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.461 4.829 5.468 4.966 4.347 5.63 5.128 5.011 5.068 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 658 743 657 723 827 637 699 715 707
Service Time 3.18 2.547 3.184 2.682 2.063 3.353 2.851 2.734 2.793 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.032 0.009 0.035 0.129 0.006 0.031 0.018 0.023 HCM Control Delay 9 7.7 8.2 7.9 7.7 8.4 8 7.8 7.9
HCM Lane LOS AAAAAAAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0 0.1 0.1 0.1
1409
13841-07 TA Letter
ATTACHMENT C:

QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
1410
Queuing and Blocking Report
Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions With Improvements - AM Peak Hour 11/04/2021 Scenario 1 Sun Lakes Village North SP TA (JN:12927) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection: 5: Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Driveway 1
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 23
Average Queue (ft) 8
95th Queue (ft) 25
Link Distance (ft) 352
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr.

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T T TR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 175 184 109 42 121 134 54 32
Average Queue (ft) 78 61 37 4 51 58 13 13
95th Queue (ft) 135 145 94 23 96 106 38 29
Link Distance (ft) 768 768 768 463 463 210 210
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0
Intersection: 8: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd.

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR R L T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 147 177 113 64 40 99 130 120 25 105 76 Average Queue (ft) 81 50 53 11 11 44 62 43 5 54 38
95th Queue (ft) 128 108 97 40 35 78 108 86 19 92 62
Link Distance (ft) 463 463 463 850 850 315 315 379 379
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0
1411
Queuing and Blocking Report
Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions With Improvements - AM Peak Hour 11/04/2021 Scenario 1 Sun Lakes Village North SP TA (JN:12927) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Intersection: 9: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Driveway 4
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 34
Link Distance (ft) 562
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 13
1412
Queuing and Blocking Report
Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions With Improvements - PM Peak Hour 11/04/2021 Scenario 1 Sun Lakes Village North SP TA (JN:12927) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection: 5: Sun Lakes Village Dr. & Driveway 1
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34
Average Queue (ft) 15
95th Queue (ft) 34
Link Distance (ft) 245
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Sun Lakes Village Dr.

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T T TR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 160 144 102 41 304 304 72 117
Average Queue (ft) 72 58 42 5 204 180 28 39
95th Queue (ft) 125 116 84 25 302 289 60 81
Link Distance (ft) 768 768 768 463 463 211 211
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Intersection: 8: Country Club Dr. W & Sun Lakes Blvd.

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR R L T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 131 134 145 112 174 219 105 118 79 96 87 Average Queue (ft) 71 76 77 34 126 43 55 59 29 42 33
95th Queue (ft) 117 124 127 81 185 142 94 106 57 81 64
Link Distance (ft) 463 463 463 850 850 315 315 340 340
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 2 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 3 5
1413
Queuing and Blocking Report
Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions With Improvements - PM Peak Hour 11/04/2021 Scenario 1 Sun Lakes Village North SP TA (JN:12927) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Intersection: 9: Sun Lakes Blvd. & Driveway 4
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 65
Average Queue (ft) 29
95th Queue (ft) 56
Link Distance (ft) 562
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 17
1414
References
114 City of Banning
Appendix C
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
1415
13841-02 VMT
October 20, 2021
Ms. Pam Steele
MIG
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 102
Riverside, California 92507
SUBJECT: BANNING POINT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS Dear Ms. Pam Steele:

The following vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis has been prepared for the proposed Banning Point (Project) in the City of Banning.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
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. (See attachment A) The Project as proposed appears consistent with the industrial and commercial components of the approved Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 51 (SPA No.5).

BACKGROUND
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) (Technical Advisory). (2) 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(September 2021) (City Guidelines), which is currently in draft form and pending final City Council adoption. (3) The draft City Guidelines have been utilized to prepare this VMT analysis, which is consistent with City direction.
1 SPA No.5; https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020029074/3
1416
Ms. Pam Steele
MIG
October 20, 2021

Page 2 of 7 ends

13841-02 VMT

PROJECT SCREENING
The City’s Guidelines provides 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, applicable screening criteria are in bold and are to be evaluated further:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Map Based Screening based on Low VMT Area
• Local-Serving Retail Screening
• Redevelopment Projects
• Local-Serving Community Projects
• Local-Serving Essential Services Projects
• Affordable Housing
• Small Project Screening
A land development project need only to 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.

TPA SCREENING
Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory and City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”2 or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”3) 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); 2 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.”). 3 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.”). 1417
Ms. Pam Steele
MIG
October 20, 2021

Page 3 of 7 ends

13841-02 VMT
• 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 presented in Attachment B, the Project site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor.

The TPA screening threshold is not met.

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. (See Attachment B)
The Low VMT Area screening threshold is not met.

LOCAL SERVING RETAIL SCREENING
The City Guidelines identifies 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 presumed to have a less than significant impact as local serving in nature and would tend to shorten vehicle trips. The proposed Project intends to develop 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. The retail uses within the proposed Project does not exceed the 50,000 square feet.

The Project Type screening threshold is met for the Project’s retail component only. 1418
Ms. Pam Steele
MIG
October 20, 2021

Page 4 of 7 ends

13841-02 VMT

SMALL PROJECT 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 Attachment C) would generate 3,844 daily vehicle trips which is above 1,000 daily vehicle trip threshold.

The Project Trip screening threshold is not met.

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, a project level VMT analysis should be prepared for the Project’s industrial component only.

PROJECT VMT ASSESSMENT
The Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) is a useful 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 identifies that until RIVCOM is released by WRCOG, RIVTAM is the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the City.

Project VMT has been 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 uses). A separate TAZ is used to isolate the Project’s VMT.

Table 1 summarizes the employment estimates for the Project. It should be noted that the employment estimates are consistent with the land use to employment generation factors from the Riverside County General Plan. (4)
TABLE 1: EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
Land Use Building Area Building Area per Employee Estimated Employees4 Industrial 619,959 sf 1,030 sf 602
Adjustments to employment factors for the Project’s TAZ were made to baseline scenario and the RIVTAM model was then run inclusive of the Project’s SED.

PROJECT VMT CALCULATION
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 employee5. For land 4 Riverside County General Plan Employment Factors
5 City’s Guidelines; Page 23.
1419
Ms. Pam Steele
MIG
October 20, 2021

Page 5 of 7 ends

13841-02 VMT
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 2, the Project’s VMT per employee is 14.26.

TABLE 2: PROJECT VMT PER EMPLOYEE
Baseline
Employment 602
VMT6 8,582
HBW VMT / Worker7 14.26

CITY OF BANNING VMT
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 recently approved SPA No. 5, a threshold of no net increase in VMT per employee should be utilized. The VMT per employee value previously calculated for the SPA No. 5 is utilized as the impact threshold.

PROJECT LEVEL VMT ASSESSMENT
Table 3 illustrates the comparison between Project generated VMT per employee to the VMT per employee previously calculated for the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 VMT Analysis.
8 The VMT per employee value for the approved SPA No. 5 was 14.33, while the Project’s calculated VMT per employee value is 14.26. The Project would not result in a net increase in VMT per employee and would therefore not result in a significant impact. 6 VMT=Vehicle Tips x Trip Length. Where VT = 855 HBW (Attraction) Trips and TL= 10.0372 HBW (Attraction) Miles. Both VT and TL derived from the model. 7 HBW VMT/Employee 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. 8 SPA No. 5 VMT Analysis; Page 5, Table 2
1420
Ms. Pam Steele
MIG
October 20, 2021

Page 6 of 7 ends

13841-02 VMT
TABLE 3: VMT PER EMPLOYEE COMPARISON
Baseline VMT per Employee
SPA No.5 14.33
Project 14.26
Difference -0.07
Net Increase? No

CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project’s retail component was found to meet City adopted local serving retail screening threshold and is therefore the retail component of the Project is presumed to result in a less than significant 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 in the approved SPA No. 5 VMT analysis.

Therefore, the Project’s potential impact to VMT is presumed to be less than significant.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 660-1994.

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

Alex So Charlene So, PE
Senior Analyst Associate Principal
1421
Ms. Pam Steele
MIG
October 20, 2021

Page 7 of 7 ends

13841-02 VMT

REFERENCES

1. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

State of California : s.n., December 2018.

2. City of Banning. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines For Local Transportation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. City of Banning : s.n., TBD.

3. County of Riverside. Appendix E: Socioeconomic Build-Out Assumptions and Methodology. County of Riverside : s.n., April 2017.
1422
13841-02 VMT

ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT SITE PLAN
1423
13841
-02 VMT
1424
13841-02 VMT

ATTACHMENT B

WRCOG VMT SCREENING TOOL
1425
13841
-02 VMT
1426
13841-02 VMT

ATTACHMENT C

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
1427
13841
-02 VMT
1428
13841
-02 VMT
1429
13841
-02 VMT
1430
13841
-02 VMT
1431
13841
-02 VMT
1432
References
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 115
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Appendix D
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
1433
Banning Point

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF BANNING
PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 584-3148
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
13841-07 Noise Study
1434
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
ii
1435
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF EXHIBITS.................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS .............................................................................................................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Location.................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Noise Descriptors.......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Sound Propagation........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Noise Control .............................................................................................................................. 10

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation........................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10

2.7 Community Response to Noise................................................................................................... 10

2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 13

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements...................................................................................... 13

3.2 City of Banning General Plan Noise Element.............................................................................. 13

3.3 City of Banning Municipal Code Standards................................................................................. 16

3.4 Vibration Standards .................................................................................................................... 16 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 19

4.1 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed...................................................................................... 19

4.2 Noise Level Increases.................................................................................................................. 19

4.3 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 21 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 23

5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 23

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Noise Measurement Results....................................................................................................... 24 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES............................................................................ 27

6.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 27 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 31

7.1 Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................................................ 31

7.2 Existing Project Traffic Noise Level Increases............................................................................. 33

7.3 Horizon Year Traffic Noise Level Increases................................................................................. 33 8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS ............................................................................................... 35 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 37

9.1 Operational Noise Sources.......................................................................................................... 37

9.2 Reference Noise Levels............................................................................................................... 37 1436
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
iv

9.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 40

9.4 Project Operational Noise Levels................................................................................................ 41

9.5 Project Operational Noise Level Compliance.............................................................................. 42

9.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 43 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 46

10.1 Construction Noise Levels........................................................................................................... 47

10.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 47

10.3 Typical Construction Noise Analysis............................................................................................ 49

10.4 Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance ............................................................................ 50

10.5 Construction Vibration Analysis.................................................................................................. 51 11 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 55 12 CERTIFICATION.......................................................................................................................... 57

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 9.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 12 EXHIBIT 3-A: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS .......................... 15 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS............................................................................... 25 EXHIBIT 8-A: SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS................................................................................... 36 EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS.................................................................... 38 EXHIBIT 10-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS........................................ 48 1437
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
v

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS.................................................................. 1 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY .................................................................................. 21 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .......................................................... 24 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS................................................................................... 28 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 29 TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS ........................................................................................... 29 TABLE 6-4: WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE MIX ..................................................................................... 29 TABLE 6-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX............................................................................. 30 TABLE 6-6: HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX.................................................................... 30 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS ........................................................................ 31 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONTOURS ............................................................................... 32 TABLE 7-3: HORIZON YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS ............................................................... 32 TABLE 7-4: HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT CONTOURS...................................................................... 33 TABLE 7-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .............................................. 34 TABLE 7-6: HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES..................................... 34 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ...................................................................... 39 TABLE 9-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS .............................................................. 42 TABLE 9-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ........................................................... 42 TABLE 9-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 43 TABLE 9-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES.............................................. 44 TABLE 9-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ........................................................ 45 TABLE 10-1: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ....................................................... 49 TABLE 10-2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ..................................... 50 TABLE 10-3: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE...................................................... 51 TABLE 10-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ...................................... 51 TABLE 10-5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS ........................................................... 53 1438
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ANSI American National Standards Institute
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
mph Miles per hour
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project Banning Point
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
1439
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the potential noise impacts and the necessary noise mitigation measures, if any, for Banning Point development (“Project”).

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. This study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Banning standards and thresholds of significance based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) The results of this Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report. Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Off-Site Traffic Noise Less Than Significant -
Operational Noise Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
1440
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
2 This page intentionally left blank
1441
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Banning Point (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for noise and vibration analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The Banning Point Project is located on the northeast corner of Sun Lake Village Drive and Sun Lake Boulevard in the City of Banning, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The nearest sensitive residential land uses are located east and south of the project site. The I-10 Freeway and Union Pacific rail line located just north of the Project site represent the primary sources of noise activity in the Project study area.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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. The Project as proposed is consistent with the industrial and commercial components of the approved Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 (SPA No.5).

The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, drive-through speakerphone, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements. This noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical operational activities at the Project site. 1442
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
1443
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
1444
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
6 This page intentionally left blank
1445
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Aweighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time. 1446
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
8 2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in Aweighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period (typically one hour) and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.

To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical or percentile noise descriptors L50, L25, L8 and L2, are commonly used. The percentile noise descriptors are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 50 percent, 25 percent, 8 percent and 2 percent of a stated time. Sound levels associated with the L2 and L8 typically describe transient or short-term events, while levels associated with the L50 describe the steady state (or median) noise conditions. The relies on the percentile noise levels to describe the stationary source noise level limits. While the L50 describes the noise levels occurring 50 percent of the time, the Leq accounts for the total energy (average) observed for the entire hour.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Banning relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.

2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (2)
1447
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
9 2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)

2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (2)

2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearest residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (4)

2.3.5 REFLECTION
Field studies conducted by the FHWA have shown that the reflection from barriers and buildings does not substantially increase noise levels. (4) If all the noise striking a structure was reflected back to a given receiving point, the increase would be theoretically limited to 3 dBA. Further, not all the acoustical energy is reflected back to same point. Some of the energy would go over the structure, some is reflected to points other than the given receiving point, some is scattered by ground coverings (e.g., grass and other plants), and some is blocked by intervening structures and/or obstacles (e.g., the noise source itself). Additionally, some of the reflected energy is lost due to the longer path that the noise must travel. FHWA measurements made to quantify 1448
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
10 reflective increases in traffic noise have not shown an increase of greater than 1-2 dBA; an increase that is not perceptible to the average human ear.

2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.

2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by up to 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (4)

2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (5)

2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to initiating court action, depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
• Fear associated with noise producing activities;
• Socio-economic status and educational level;
• Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated; • Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity; • Belief that the noise source can be controlled.

Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (6) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to 1449
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
11 traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (6) Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION

2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (7), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
1450
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
12 The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.

EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 1451
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
13 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.

Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (8) The purpose of the Noise and safety Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

3.2 CITY OF BANNING GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Banning General Plan Noise Element coordinates the community’s land uses with the existing and future noise environment, and provides design measures that are intended to minimize or avoid community exposure to excessive noise levels. (9) The implementation of policies and programs set forth in the Noise Element are used to reduce or even avoid current and future noise impacts and land use conflicts. The goal of the City of Banning General Plan Noise Element is a noise environment that complements the community’s residential character and its land uses. (9) The nine policies of the Noise Element which are used pursue this goal are presented below:

Policy 1 The City shall protect noise sensitive land uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, libraries, churches, resorts and community open space, from potentially significant sources of community noise.

Policy 2 The relationship between land use designations in the Land Use Element and changes in the circulation pattern of the City, as well as individual developments, shall be monitored and mitigated.

Policy 3 Private sector project proposals shall include measures that assure that noise exposures levels comply with State of California noise insulation standards as defined in Title 25 (California Noise Insulation Standards) and/or Banning Ordinances 1138 and 1234, whichever is more restrictive.

Policy 4 The City shall maintain a General Plan Circulation Map and assure low levels of traffic within neighborhoods by assigning truck routes to major roadways only. 1452
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
14 Policy 5 The City shall ensure that flight paths and airport improvements adhere to all local, state and federal noise regulations.

Policy 6 All development proposals within the noise impact area of the Interstate and the railroad shall mitigate both noise levels and vibration to acceptable levels through the preparation of focused studies and analysis in the development review and environmental review process.

Policy 7 The City shall coordinate with adjoining jurisdictions to assure noise-compatible land uses across jurisdictional boundaries.

Policy 8 The City shall impose and integrate special design features into proposed development that minimize impacts associated with the operation of air conditioning and heating equipment, onsite traffic, and use of parking, loading and trash storage facilities.

Policy 9 The City shall support development that results in grade separated railroad tracks.

The noise criteria identified in the City of Banning Noise Element (Table V-4) are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation-related noise. The compatibility criteria, shown on Exhibit 3-A, provides the City with a planning tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future exterior noise levels. The Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments guidelines indicate that industrial and commercial land uses, such as the Project, are considered both normally acceptable with noise levels approaching 70 dBA CNEL and 67 dBA CNEL, respectively. (9)
1453
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
15 EXHIBIT 3-A: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS Source: City of Banning General Plan Noise Element, Table V-4. 1454
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
16 3.3 CITY OF BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Banning Point Project, stationary-source (operational) noise levels and noise from construction activities are typically evaluated against standards established under the City’s Municipal Code.

3.3.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
For noise-sensitive residential property, the City of Banning Municipal Code, Chapter 8.44.050, identifies exterior noise levels standards of 55 dBA Leq for the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. Further, Chapter

8.44.050 indicates that if the existing ambient noise level already exceeds any of the exterior noise level limit categories, then the standard shall be adjusted to reflect the ambient conditions.

The City of Banning Municipal Code Noise Standards are included in Appendix 3.1.

3.3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. Section 8.44.090 of the City’s Municipal Code indicates that construction activity is considered exempt from the noise level limits of the Municipal Code if activity is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (10) However, the Municipal Code further indicates that nothing contained herein shall permit any person to cause sound levels to at any time exceed fifty-five dB(A) for intervals of more than fifteen minutes per hour as measured in the interior of the nearest occupied residence or school. Therefore, the analysis presented in this noise study evaluates Project-related construction noise levels based on the interior noise level limit of 55 dBA at the nearest sensitive receiver locations (e.g., residential homes). The 55 dBA interior construction noise level limit is used in this noise study based on the energy-average equivalent (Leq) noise level to determine potential impacts since the analysis assumes a worst-case duration of Project construction activity, averaged over the any time period, and is therefore, more conservative than the interval of 15 minutes or more as identified in the Municipal Code.

3.4 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (7)
To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the Banning Point, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Banning does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (11 p. 38) Table 19, vibration 1455
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
17 damage are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).
1456
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
18 This page intentionally left blank
1457
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
19 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (8) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? While the City of Banning General Plan Guidelines provide direction on noise compatibility and establish noise standards by land use type that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guideline A. CEQA Appendix G Guideline C applies to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project’s land use compatibility.

4.1 CEQAGUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED
The Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is the Banning Municipal Airport located roughly 4.4 miles east of the Project site. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is conducted in relation to CEQA Appendix G Guideline C.

4.2 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
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. (12) Unfortunately, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal 1458
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
20 Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (13) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).

As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (12) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.

The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise-sensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (4 p. 9) and Caltrans (14 p. 2_48).
1459
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
21 4.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed Project. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
Traffic
if ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL1 ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL1 ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL1 ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Operational
Exterior Noise Level Limit2 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq
1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase
if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq
1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase
if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq
1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase
Construction
Interior Noise Level Threshold3 55 dBA Leq n/a
Vibration Level Threshold4 0.3 PPV (in/sec) n/a
1 FICON, 1992.
2 The City of Banning Municipal Code Chapter 8.44.050.
3 City of Banning Municipal Code, Sections 8.44.090 (E) (Appendix 3.1). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. "n/a" = construction activities are not planned during the nighttime hours; "PPV" = peak particle velocity. 1460
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
22 This page intentionally left blank
1461
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
23 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Wednesday, May 5th, 2021. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (15)

5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (7)
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. (7) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels 1462
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
24 and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq).

The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.

TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located north of the Project site near single-family residence at 5778 Joshua Palmer Way. 66.5 65.4
L2 Located east of the Project site near single-family
residence at 350 Northwood Avenue. 60.1 60.0
L3 Located east of the Project site near The Lakes Assisted Living & Memory Care at 5801 Sun Lakes Boulevard. 54.4 57.8 L4 Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 5933 Oakmont Drive. 66.2 59.7
L5 Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 6111 Wingfoot Avenue. 59.4 56.2
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix

5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.
1463
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
25 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
1464
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
26 This page intentionally left blank
1465
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
27 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to estimate and analyze the future traffic noise environment. According to the Banning Point (TPM 38164) Traffic Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,292 actual vehicle trip-ends per day (1,996 passenger car trips and 296 truck trips). The previously approved Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Traffic Study (dated September 4, 2020) would generate 3,844 trips per day. (16) The Banning Point (TPM 38164) Traffic Assessment determined that the Project would generate 1,404 fewer passenger car trips and 148 fewer truck trips than the previously approved Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Traffic Study. Even though the proposed Project resultsin an overall reduction in vehicle trips, the following off-site traffic noise analysis was prepared to assess the incremental noise level increase attributed fully to the proposed Project without any credit for the previously approved project.

6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (17) This methodology is commonly used to describe the off-site traffic noise levels throughout California and is consistent with the City of Banning General Plan Noise Element. The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL).

In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (18) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions (“hard” or “soft” relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (19)

6.1.1 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
Table 6-1 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project’s off-site transportation noise impacts. Table 6-1 identifies the twenty off-site study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Banning General Plan Mobility Element, and the posted vehicle speeds. The ADT volumes used in this study area presented on Table 6-2 are based on Banning Point (TPM 38164) Traffic Assessment by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for the following traffic scenarios. (16)

1. Existing
1466
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
28 2. Existing + Project

3. Horizon Year (2040)

4. Horizon Year (2040) + Project
The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing traffic volumes and the combination of project traffic distributions. This analysis relies on a comparative evaluation of the off-site traffic noise impacts at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use, without and with project ADT traffic volumes from the Project traffic study.

TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Roadway Segment Classification1 Receiving
Land Use2
Distance
from
Centerline to
Receiving
Land Use
(Feet)3
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps Urban Arterial Non-Sensitive 67' 30 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. Urban Arterial Non-Sensitive 67' 30 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. Urban Arterial Non-Sensitive 67' 30 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. Urban Arterial Sensitive 67' 30 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. Major Sensitive 50' 45 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. Major Sensitive 50' 35 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. Major Sensitive 50' 35 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. Major Sensitive 50' 35 1 City of Banning Circulation Element.
2 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 3 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances.

To quantify the off-site noise levels, the Project related truck trips were added to the heavy truck category in the FHWA noise prediction model. The addition of the Project related truck trips increases the percentage of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix. This approach recognizes that the FHWA noise prediction model is significantly influenced by the number of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix.

Table 6-3 provides the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits. Table 6-4 shows the traffic flow by vehicle type (vehicle mix) used for all without Project traffic scenarios, and Tables 6-5 to 6-6 show the vehicle mixes used for the with Project traffic scenarios. Due to the added Project truck trips, the increase in Project traffic volumes and the distributions of trucks on the study area road segments, the percentage of autos, medium trucks and heavy trucks will vary for each of the traffic scenarios. This explains why the existing and future traffic volumes and vehicle mixes vary between seemingly identical study area roadway segments. 1467
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
29 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes1
Existing Horizon Year (2040)
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps 32,793 32,953 42,498 42,658 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. 22,732 24,370 29,459 31,097 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. 15,725 17,417 21,649 23,341 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. 8,272 8,426 21,900 22,054 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. 9,557 9,732 12,385 12,560 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. 7,439 9,460 12,459 14,480 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. 7,439 8,250 9,641 10,452 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. 6,635 7,690 8,598 9,654 1 Banning Point (TPM 38164) Traffic Assessment, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type
Time of Day Splits1
Total of Time of
Daytime Evening Nighttime Day Splits
Autos 77.50% 12.90% 9.60% 100.00%
Medium Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30% 100.00%
Heavy Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80% 100.00%
1 County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene. Values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

TABLE 6-4: WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
Classification
Total % Traffic Flow1
Total
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
All Segments 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00%
1 County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene. Values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. 1468
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
30 TABLE 6-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
ID Roadway Segment
With Project1
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total2
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps 86.92% 1.93% 11.16% 100.00% 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. 86.52% 2.28% 11.20% 100.00% 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. 86.43% 2.41% 11.16% 100.00% 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. 87.09% 1.90% 11.01% 100.00% 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. 87.09% 1.90% 11.01% 100.00% 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. 86.53% 2.74% 10.72% 100.00% 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. 88.15% 1.75% 10.11% 100.00% 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. 88.66% 1.67% 9.67% 100.00% 1 Total of vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth.

TABLE 6-6: HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
ID Roadway Segment
With Project1
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total2
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps 86.90% 1.93% 11.17% 100.00% 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. 86.59% 2.21% 11.20% 100.00% 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. 86.54% 2.29% 11.17% 100.00% 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. 86.95% 1.92% 11.13% 100.00% 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. 87.04% 1.91% 11.05% 100.00% 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. 86.64% 2.46% 10.89% 100.00% 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. 87.87% 1.79% 10.34% 100.00% 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. 88.29% 1.72% 9.98% 100.00% 1 Total of vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. 1469
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
31 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project, noise contours were developed based on the Banning Point Focused Traffic Analysis. (16) Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.

7.1 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area.

Tables 7-1 to 7-4 present a summary of the exterior traffic noise levels for each traffic condition.

Appendix 7.1 includes the traffic noise level contours worksheets.

TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps Non-Sensitive 76.0 169 364 784 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. Non-Sensitive 74.4 132 285 614 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. Non-Sensitive 72.8 104 223 480 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. Sensitive 70.0 67 145 313 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 74.9 107 230 495 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 72.1 69 148 318 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. Sensitive 72.1 69 148 318 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. Sensitive 71.6 64 137 295 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 the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 1470
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
32 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps Non-Sensitive 76.0 169 364 784 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. Non-Sensitive 74.7 139 299 645 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. Non-Sensitive 73.3 111 239 515 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. Sensitive 70.1 68 145 313 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 74.9 107 230 495 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 73.0 79 170 367 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. Sensitive 72.1 69 149 321 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. Sensitive 71.6 64 138 298 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 the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

TABLE 7-3: HORIZON YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps Non-Sensitive 77.2 201 433 932 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. Non-Sensitive 75.6 157 339 730 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. Non-Sensitive 74.2 128 276 595 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. Sensitive 74.3 129 278 599 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 76.1 127 273 588 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 74.3 97 208 449 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. Sensitive 73.2 82 176 378 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. Sensitive 72.7 76 163 351 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 the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 1471
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
33 TABLE 7-4: HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps Non-Sensitive 77.2 201 433 932 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. Non-Sensitive 75.8 163 352 758 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. Non-Sensitive 74.6 135 290 626 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. Sensitive 74.3 129 278 599 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 76.1 127 273 589 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 74.9 106 228 491 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. Sensitive 73.2 82 177 381 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. Sensitive 72.7 76 164 354 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 the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

7.2 EXISTING PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report for informational purposes and to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Traffic Study. However, the analysis of existing off-site traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project scenario will not actually occur since the Project would not be fully constructed and operational until opening year conditions. Table 7-1 shows the Existing without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing without Project exterior noise levels range from 70.0 to 76.0 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 shows the Existing with Project conditions ranging from 70.1 to 76.0 dBA CNEL. Table 7-5 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 significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Section 4.1, 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.

7.3 HORIZON YEAR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-3 presents the Horizon Year without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Horizon Year without Project exterior noise levels range from 72.7 to 77.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 shows that the Horizon Year with Project conditions will range from 72.7 to 77.2 dBA CNEL. Table 7-6 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.6 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Section 4.1, 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. 1472
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
34 TABLE 7-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps Non-Sensitive 76.0 76.0 0.0 1.5 No 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. Non-Sensitive 74.4 74.7 0.3 1.5 No 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. Non-Sensitive 72.8 73.3 0.5 1.5 No 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. Sensitive 70.0 70.1 0.1 1.5 No 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 74.9 74.9 0.0 1.5 No 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 72.1 73.0 0.9 1.5 No 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. Sensitive 72.1 72.1 0.0 1.5 No 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. Sensitive 71.6 71.6 0.0 1.5 No 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. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? TABLE 7-6: HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Highland Springs Av. n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps Non-Sensitive 77.2 77.2 0.0 1.5 No 2 Highland Springs Av. n/o 2nd St. Non-Sensitive 75.6 75.8 0.2 1.5 No 3 Highland Springs Av. n/o 1st St. Non-Sensitive 74.2 74.6 0.4 1.5 No 4 Highland Springs Av. s/o 1st St. Sensitive 74.3 74.3 0.0 1.5 No 5 1st St. w/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 76.1 76.1 0.0 1.5 No 6 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Highland Springs Av. Sensitive 74.3 74.9 0.6 1.5 No 7 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr. Sensitive 73.2 73.2 0.0 1.5 No 8 Sun Lakes Blvd. e/o Country Club Dr. Sensitive 72.7 72.7 0.0 1.5 No 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. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 1473
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
35 8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 8-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noisesensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include:
industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, five receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2.

Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.

R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise sensitive 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, receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 301 Northwood Avenue, approximately 725 feet east of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard). A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive Assisted Living and Memory Care at 5801Sun Lakes Boulevard, approximately 110 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R3 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 5831 Oakmont Drive, approximately 115 feet south of the Project site. Receiver R4 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard). A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. 1474
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
36 R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive 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, receiver R5 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

EXHIBIT 8-A: SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
1475
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
37 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations, identified in Section 8, resulting from the operation of the Banning Point Project. Exhibit 9-A identifies the representative noise source activities used to assess the operational noise levels.

9.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, drivethrough speakerphone, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements.

9.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 9-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worstcase noise environment with the loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, drivethrough speakerphone, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

9.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precisions sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (15)
1476
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
38 EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
1477
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
39 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source1
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./
Hour2
Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 3
Cold Storage Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 65.7 111.5
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 59.2 88.9
Drive-Thru Activity 3' 60 30 51.5 83.2
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 10 10 59.3 89.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 60 56.1 79.0
Truck Movements 8' 60 60 58.0 93.2
1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources.

9.2.2 COLD STORAGE LOADING DOCK ACTIVITY
To describe the loading dock activities, a reference noise level measurement was collected to represent the truck activities. The reference noise level measurement was taken in the center of the loading dock activity area and represents multiple concurrent noise sources resulting in a combined noise level of 65.7 dBA Leq at a uniform distance of 50 feet. Specifically, the reference noise level measurement represents one truck located approximately 30 feet from the noise level meter with another truck passing by to park roughly 20 feet away, both with their engines idling.

Throughout the reference noise level measurement, a separate docked and running reefer truck was located approximately 50 feet east of the measurement location. Additional background noise sources included truck pass-by noise, truck drivers talking to each other next to docked trucks, and air brake release noise when trucks parked.

9.2.3 ROOF-TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
The noise level measurements describe a single mechanical roof-top air conditioning unit. The reference noise level represents a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise levels are 59.2 dBA Leq.

Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four-day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for and average 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. These operating conditions reflect peak summer cooling requirements with measured temperatures approaching 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with average daytime temperatures of 82°F. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the Project buildings.

9.2.4 DRIVE-THRU SPEAKERPHONE ACTIVITY
To describe the potential noise level impacts associated with potential drive-thru speakerphones and vehicle activities, a reference noise level measurement was collected. The reference noise 1478
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
40 levels collected are expected to reflect potential drive-thru speakerphone noise level activities at the Project site, since the reference measurement includes both drive-thru speakerphone and vehicle activity noise. The noise sources included in the reference noise level measurement consist of voices of the employees over the speakerphone, customers’ voices ordering food, car engines idling, car radios playing music, and cars queuing in the drive-thru lane. At 50 feet from the speakerphone, a reference noise level of 51.5 dBA Leq was measured.

9.2.5 TRASH ENCLOSURE ACTIVITY
To describe the noise levels associated with a trash enclosure activity, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at an existing trash enclosure containing two dumpster bins. The trash enclosure noise levels describe metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, and trash dropping into the metal dumpster. The reference noise levels describe trash enclosure noise activities when trash is dropped into an empty metal dumpster, as would occur at the Project Site. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 57.3 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The reference noise level describes the expected noise source activities associated with the trash enclosures for the Project’s proposed building. Typical trash enclosure activities are estimated to occur for 10 minutes per hour.

9.2.6 PARKING LOT VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
To describe the on-site parking lot activity a reference noise level of 56.1 dBA Leq at 50 feet is used. Parking activities are expected to take place during the full hour (60 minutes) throughout the daytime and evening hours. The parking lot noise levels are mainly due cars pulling in and out of parking spaces.

9.2.6 TRUCK MOVEMENTS
The truck movements reference noise level measurement was collected over a period of 1 hour and 28 minutes and represents multiple heavy trucks entering and exiting the outdoor loading dock area producing a reference noise level of 59.8 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The noise sources included at this measurement location account for trucks entering and existing the Project driveways and maneuvering in and out of the outdoor loading dock activity area.

9.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.

Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise 1479
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
41 prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment.

The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Appendix 9.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section including the planned noise barriers.

9.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, drive-through speakerphone, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table 9-2 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.

Table 9-3 shows the Project 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. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the duration of noise activity with no nighttime car wash tunnel or vacuum operations.
1480
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
42 TABLE 9-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Cold Storage Loading Dock Activity 47.3 37.3 34.7 44.1 44.5 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 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 Activity 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 (All Noise Sources) 47.5 38.4 44.1 45.8 45.9
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1.

TABLE 9-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Cold Storage Loading Dock Activity 46.3 36.4 33.7 43.1 43.5 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 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 Activity 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 29.0 28.1 41.3 28.9 29.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 46.5 37.4 42.9 44.5 44.7
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1.

9.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds and the adjusted standards to reflect the ambient noise levels based on the City of Banning exterior noise level standards at nearest noisesensitive receiver locations. Table 9-4 shows the operational noise levels associated with Banning Point Project will satisfy the County of San Bernardino 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 on Exhibit 9-A. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations.
1481
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
43 TABLE 9-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?5
Daytime Nighttime Daytime3 Nighttime4 Daytime Nighttime R1 47.5 46.5 60 65.4 No No
R2 38.4 37.4 60 60.0 No No
R3 44.1 42.9 60 57.8 No No
R4 45.8 44.5 60 59.7 No No
R5 45.9 44.7 60 56.2 No No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 9-2 and 9-3. 3 Exterior noise level standards, as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Exterior noise level standards adjusted to reflect the ambient noise levels (see Table 5-1) per the City of Banning Municipal Code, Chapter 8.44.050 (Appendix 3.1).
5 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

9.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Tables 9-5 and 9-6, 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 satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Table 4-1. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
1482
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
44 TABLE 9-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?7
R1 47.5 L1 61.3 61.4 0.1 3.0 No
R2 38.4 L2 60.1 60.1 0.0 3.0 No
R3 44.1 L3 54.4 54.8 0.4 5.0 No
R4 45.8 L4 66.2 66.2 0.0 1.5 No
R5 45.9 L5 59.4 59.6 0.2 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as shown on Table 4-1.
1483
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
45 TABLE 9-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?7
R1 46.5 L1 58.8 59.0 0.0 0.0 No
R2 37.4 L2 60.0 60.0 0.0 1.5 No
R3 42.9 L3 57.8 57.9 0.1 5.0 No
R4 44.5 L4 59.7 59.8 0.1 5.0 No
R5 44.7 L5 56.2 56.5 0.3 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as shown on Table 4-1.
1484
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
46 This page intentionally left blank
1485
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
47 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 10-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 6.

10.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating

10.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe peak construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements published in the Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (20). The DEFRA database provides the most recent and comprehensive source of reference construction noise levels. Table 10-1 provides a summary of the DEFRA construction reference noise level measurements expressed in hourly average dBA Leq using the estimated FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) usage factors (21) to describe the typical construction activities for each stage of Project construction. 1486
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
48 EXHIBIT 10-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS 1487
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
49 TABLE 10-1: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 77
Hauling Trucks 71 77
Rubber Tired Dozers 71
Grading
Graders 79
Excavators 64 79
Compactors 67
Building
Construction
Cranes 67
Tractors 72 72
Welders 65
Paving
Pavers 70
Paving Equipment 69 70
Rollers 69
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 67
Air Compressors 67 67
Generator Sets 67
1 Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) expressed in hourly average Leq based on estimated usage factors from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).

10.3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. 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. As shown on Table 10-2, the construction noise levels 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 property line. Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.
1488
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
50 TABLE 10-2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating 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
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.1.

10.4 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity to each of the nearby receiver locations. To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, the City of Banning interior construction noise level limit for residential uses of 55 dBA Leq, previously described in Section 3, is used as the acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building facade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." (4) (22) However, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including: (1) weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; (2) upgraded dual glazed windows; (3) mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and (4) exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings.

Table 10-3 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, and will satisfy the 55 dBA Leq City of Banning interior construction noise level standard. The noise impact due to unmitigated Project construction noise levels is, therefore, considered a less than significant impact at the nearest sensitive receiver locations.
1489
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
51 TABLE 10-3: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
Interior Noise
Reduction
Estimated
Interior Noise
Level
Reduction
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
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
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 10-2.
3 Construction Noise Level Threshold as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?

10.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 10-4. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
TABLE 10-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 10-5 presents the expected Project 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 satisfy the building damage thresholds at all the noise sensitive receiver locations. In addition, the typical construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive 1490
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
52 receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries.
1491
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
53 TABLE 10-5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS
Receiver1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3
Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 543' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R2 725' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R3 110' 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.3 No
R4 115' 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.3 No
R5 134' 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Tables 19, p. 310. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
1492
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
54 This page intentionally left blank
1493
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
55 11 REFERENCES

1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.

2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

3. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

7. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

8. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.

9. City of Banning. General Plan Noise Element. January 2006.

10. —. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.44 - Noise.

11. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.

12. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.

13. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

14. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.

15. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

16. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Banning Point (TPM 38164) Traffic Assessment. February 2022.

17. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.

18. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03.

19. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.

20. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affiars (Defra). Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites. 2004.

21. FHWA. Roadway Construction Noise Model. January 2006. 1494
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
56 22. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. May 2011. 1495
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
57 12 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Banning Point Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 584-3148.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
1133 Camelback #8329
Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 581-3148
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – 013011 • June, 1997–January 1, 2012 PTP – Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 – May, 2013 INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 1496
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
58 1497
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE
59 1498
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
60 1499
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
1/9
A.

Chapter 8.44 - NOISE

8.44.010 - Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and standards for the regulation of noise levels within the city and to implement the noise provisions contained in the city's General Plan. (Code 1965, § 11D-01.)

8.44.020 - Findings.

It is hereby found and declared that:

The making, creation or maintenance of excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud noises which are prolonged, unusual and unnatural in their time, place and use, affect and are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity of the residents of the city; and
The necessity for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination and public policy. It is further declared that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity and the peace and quiet of the city. (Code 1965, § 11D-02.)

8.44.030 - Definitions.
"Ambient noise" shall mean the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding any intrusive noise. "Capital Improvement" shall mean major construction, acquisition or maintenance/repair projects.

Typical examples of major construction would include new street improvements, park development and construction of public buildings or structures, treatment plants. Structures include lighting, sewer and water pipelines and other related utility structures including treatment plants, gas, electric and other infrastructure, landscaping and drainage facilities and all other public infrastructure. "Acquisitions" include the acquisition of land or interest in land. Major maintenance/repairs may include street resurfacing and modifications to public buildings and structures.
"Commercial purpose" shall mean the use, operation or maintenance of any sound-amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, goods or services and/or for the purpose of advertising or attracting the attention of the public to or soliciting patronage for any performance, entertainment, exhibition or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating any such sound equipment. 61 1500
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
2/9
"Cumulative time period" shall mean a period of time composed of individual time segments which may be continuous or interrupted.
"Decibel (dB)" shall mean a measurement unit of sound pressure level which denotes the ratio between two quantities which are proportional to power; the number of decibels corresponding to the ratio of two amounts of power is ten times the logarithm to the base ten of this ratio. "Governmental agency" shall mean the United States (federal government), the State of California, Riverside County, the City of Banning, the school district and any special district within Riverside County or any combination of these agencies.
"Impact noise" shall mean the sound produced by the impact or collision of one moving object or mass with a second object or mass that is stationary or moving. "Intrusive noise" shall mean a sound which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise level at a given location.
"Motor-driven vehicle" shall include, but not be limited to, any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, minibike, go-cart or other self-propelled vehicle, on or off road, and aircraft. "Noise" shall mean any sound that is loud or disturbing or that interferes with one's ability to hear some other sound.
"Noise level" shall mean the "A" weighted sound pressure level in decibels audible to humans obtained by using a sound level meter. The unit of noise level measurement shall be designated as dB(A). "Person" shall mean a person, firm, association, copartnership, joint venture, corporation or any entity, public or private in nature.
"Public property" shall mean property that is owned by any governmental agency as indicated in this section or held by the public, including, but not limited to, parks, streets, sidewalks, and alleys. "Simple tone noise" shall mean a noise characterized by a predominant frequency or frequencies so that other frequencies cannot be readily distinguished.
"Sound pressure level of a sound, in decibels" shall mean twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the pressure of this sound to the reference pressure, which reference pressure shall be explicitly stated.

As used in Section 8.44.090(H), "person of normal hearing sensitivity" means a person who has a hearing threshold level of between zero decibels and twenty-five decibels HL averaged over frequencies 500, 1000, and 2000 Hertz.
(Code 1965, § 11D-03.)
(Ord. No. 1454, § 4, 10-9-12)
62 1501
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
3/9
A.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

8.44.040 - Noise level measurement criteria.

Any noise level measurement, made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall be determined by using a sound level meter that meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard Institute for sound level meters, or by using an instrument with associated recording and analyzing equipment that will provide equivalent data.

The factors which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

The sound level of the objectionable noise;
The sound level of the ambient noise;
The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; The number of persons affected by the noise source;
The time of day or night the noise occurs;
The duration of the noise and its tonal, informational or musical content; Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity; The above factors shall be considered in addition to the noise levels set forth in this section in determining a violation. However, noises do not necessarily need to exceed those noise level limits to be considered unnecessary or unusual so as to cause discomfort or annoyance to persons in the area.
(Code 1965, § 11D-04.)

8.44.050 - Base ambient noise level.

All ambient noise measurements shall commence at the base ambient noise levels in decibels within the respective times and zones as follows:

Decibels Time Zone Use
45 dB(A) 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. Residential
55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. Residential
75 dB(A) Anytime Industrial and commercial
63 1502
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
4/9
Actual decibel measurements exceeding the levels set forth hereinabove at the times and within the zones corresponding thereto shall be employed as the "base ambient noise level" referred to in this chapter. Otherwise, no ambient noise shall be deemed to be less than the above specified levels. (Code 1965, § 11D-05.)

8.44.060 - Exterior noise level measurement.

Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, all reference to "exterior noise" or "exterior noise levels" as used in this chapter shall be as measured at any point relative to the closest point of the source of the noise at the property line of the complaining party. Measurements will not be made during extraordinary times, such as during the movement of a nearby train or airplane. (Code 1965, § 11D-06.)

8.44.070 - Maximum residential noise levels.

No noise level shall exceed the following for the duration periods specified:

Noise Level Exceeded Maximum Duration Period
5 dB(A) above BANL 15 minutes any hour
10 dB(A) above BANL 5 minutes any hour
15 dB(A) above BANL 1 minute any hour
20 dB(A) above BANL Not permitted
(Code 1965, § 11D-07.)

8.44.080 - Maximum nonresidential noise levels.

Any provision contained herein to the contrary notwithstanding, no exterior noise level shall exceed the base ambient noise levels (BANL) for nonresidential land uses set forth in any development agreement applicable to such development or as otherwise specifically set forth in any development standard which is by its terms enforceable by the city against the noise maker. (Code 1965, § 11D-08.)
64 1503
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
5/9
A.

8.44.085 - Noise from public/governmental services exempt.

Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

Capital improvement projects of a governmental agency.

Maintenance and repair of public properties by a governmental agency.

Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel, and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile, so long as such sound is reasonably related to, and necessary for, the undertaking of official public safety duties. (Ord. No. 1454, § 2, 10-9-12)

8.44.090 - Noises prohibited—Unnecessary noise standard.

Any other provision of this chapter notwithstanding, the following acts are expressly prohibited as a violation of this chapter. Such acts are hereby expressly declared to be loud, unusual and unnecessary noises in violation of this chapter. namely:

Horns, signaling devices, etc. The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle, streetcar or other vehicle on any street or public place of the city, except as a danger warning. Back-up beepers may be sounded consistent with the maximum duration periods set forth in Section 8.44.080 of this chapter. The creation by means of any such signaling device of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound and, the sounding of any such device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time. For the purposes of establishing an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time with respect to automobile anti-theft alarm devices, such alarm shall not sound in excess of fifteen minutes.

Radios, televisions and stereos, etc. It shall be unlawful for any person, without special permit or as may otherwise be provided in this ordinance code, to play, use, operate or permit to be played, used or operated, any radio, television set, musical instrument, phonograph, stereophonic equipment, jukebox or other machine or device, for producing, reproducing or amplifying sound at such sound levels as to cause the sound level to exceed forty dB(A) as measured within the residence of any complaining person.

Loudspeakers, amplifiers for advertising. The using, operating or permitting to be played, used or operated of any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound which is cast upon the public streets in such manner as to exceed the maximum exterior noise level permitted under this chapter.

Animals, fowl, etc. It is unlawful for any person to keep or allow to be kept, or suffer or permit any animal to remain upon the premises under the control of such a person, when such 65 1504
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
6/9
E.

1. 2.

3. F.
animal habitually barks, whines or makes loud and unusual noises in such a manner as to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighbors surrounding or in the vicinity of such premises, or whose barking or howling or other sound or cry interferes with any person of ordinary sensitiveness in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of life and property. This provision shall not apply to farm animals within any zone where such farm animals are permitted by this ordinance code.

Construction, landscape maintenance or repair.

It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in or permit the generation of noise related to landscape maintenance, construction including erection, excavation, demolition, alteration or repair of any structure or improvement, at such sound levels, as measured at the property line of the nearest adjacent occupied property, as to be in excess of the sound levels permitted under this chapter, at other times than between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. The person engaged in such activity is hereby permitted to exceed sound levels otherwise set forth in this chapter for the duration of the activity during the above described hours for purposes of construction. However, nothing contained herein shall permit any person to cause sound levels to at any time exceed fifty-five dB(A) for intervals of more than fifteen minutes per hour as measured in the interior of the nearest occupied residence or school.

Construction related noise as defined in subsection (E)(1) immediately above, may take place outside the time period set forth in subsection (E)(1) and above the relative sound levels in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with the prior permission of the building inspector. Such permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days or until the emergency ends, whichever is less. The permit may be renewed for periods of three days while the emergency continues.

Unless exempted by this chapter, if the building official should determine that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the construction related noise, the building inspector may issue a permit for construction within the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work. The building official may place such conditions on the issuance of the permit as to him or her shall seem appropriate to maintain the public health and safety.

Machinery, equipment, fans and air conditioning. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, cause to operate or permit the operation of any machinery, equipment, device, pump, fan, compressor, air conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device, including the use of any steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist, blower or power fan, or any internal combustion engine, the operation of which causes noise due to the 66 1505
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
7/9
G.

1. H.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. I.
explosion of operating gases or fluids, or other appliance, in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of the property upon which the equipment or machinery is operated to exceed the base ambient noise level by five dB(A).

Motor driven vehicles. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor driven vehicle within the city that, due to the nature of the operation of the vehicle, or due to the operating condition of the vehicle, or due to any modification made to the vehicle, in such manner as to exceed noise levels set forth in Section 8.44.050 hereof.

Exhaust. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge into the open air the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motorboat or motor driven vehicle except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises therefrom.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal hearing sensitivity residing in the area. The standard which may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists may include, but not be limited to, the following:

The level of noise;
Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;
Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; The nature of the zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; The time of the day and night the noise occurs;
Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; The duration of the noise; and
Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity.

No person shall use or operate a radio, tape player, tape recorder, record player, television or similar device in a vehicle on a street, which is audible to a person of normal hearing sensitivity, more than twenty-five feet from said vehicle. (Code 1965, § 11D-09.)
(Ord. No. 1454, § 3, 10-9-12)

8.44.100 - Application between zones.
67 1506
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
8/9
A.

In applying the regulations set forth in this chapter, each source of noise shall be subject only to such regulation as shall apply to the zone, including any designated truck route, within which it is located. A use lying adjacent to a zone with a more restrictive noise requirement hereunder shall not be required to conform to that more restrictive requirement. For purposes of this subsection, "zone" shall be as utilized in Title 17 of the Banning Ordinance Code.
(Code 1965, § 11D-10.)

8.44.110 - Manner of enforcement.

Upon the occurrence of an alleged violation of this chapter or any provision contained herein, the alleged violator shall be issued a written notice to appear before the abatement hearing officer described in Chapter 8.48 of this Code. Such notice may be issued by any person authorized to issue a notice for violation of any provision of this Code.

The notice shall set forth the section alleged to have been violated, the manner of the violation and the date and time of such violation. The notice shall otherwise be in the form and served in the manner and within the time set forth in Chapter 8.48 of this Code. The alleged violator shall be given notice and the opportunity to appear at the hearing and there show cause why the alleged violation should not be found to constitute a nuisance.

The abatement hearing officer shall hear the matter and shall make a determination of the existence of a nuisance as for any matter heard pursuant to Chapter 8.48. The alleged violator shall thereafter be given notice of the determination of the abatement hearing officer in the manner provided by this chapter.

An appeal from a determination of the abatement hearing officer shall be taken in the manner provided in chapter 8.48 of this Code.

The police department shall have the power and duty to enforce the following noise control provisions of this Code: Section 8.44.090(H) and section 8.44.090(I) of this Code. Any person found to be in violation of section 8.44.090(H) and section 8.44.090(I), shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not exceeding one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of not exceeding six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder. (Code 1965, § 11D-11.)

8.44.120 - Violation a misdemeanor.

Any person violating any determination of the nuisance abatement board issued under this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not exceeding one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the city or county jail for a period not exceeding six 68 1507
6/29/2021 Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
9/9
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder. (Code 1965, § 11D-12.)

8.44.130 - Additional remedy—Injunction.

As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provision hereof and which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or peace of residents in the area shall be deemed, and is declared to be a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Code 1965, § 11D-13.)

8.44.140 - Fees.

A fee shall be set as determined by resolution of the city council. (Code 1965, § 11D-14.)
69 1508
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
70 1509
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS
71 1510
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
72 1511
JN: 13841 Study Area Photos
L1_E
33, 55' 38.420000"116, 56' 23.350000"
L1_N
33, 55' 38.370000"116, 56' 23.510000"
L1_S
33, 55' 38.440000"116, 56' 23.380000"
L1_W
33, 55' 38.440000"116, 56' 23.290000"
L2_E
33, 55' 30.300000"116, 56' 12.140000"
L2_N
33, 55' 30.270000"116, 56' 12.200000"
73 1512
JN: 13841 Study Area Photos
L2_S
33, 55' 30.270000"116, 56' 12.200000"
L2_W
33, 55' 30.290000"116, 56' 12.120000"
L3_E
33, 55' 24.380000"116, 56' 21.810000"
L3_N
33, 55' 24.160000"116, 56' 21.700000"
L3_S
33, 55' 24.280000"116, 56' 21.760000"
L3_W
33, 55' 24.420000"116, 56' 21.840000"
74 1513
JN: 13841 Study Area Photos
L4_E
33, 55' 19.620000"116, 56' 27.720000"
L4_N
33, 55' 19.600000"116, 56' 27.740000"
L4_S
33, 55' 19.600000"116, 56' 27.720000"
L4_W
33, 55' 19.630000"116, 56' 27.720000"
L5_E
33, 55' 19.660000"116, 56' 34.830000"
L5_N
33, 55' 19.700000"116, 56' 35.020000"
75 1514
JN: 13841 Study Area Photos
L5_S
33, 55' 19.700000"116, 56' 34.970000"
L5_W
33, 55' 19.560000"116, 56' 34.830000"
76 1515
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
77 1516
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
78 1517
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13841
Project: Banning Point Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 63.9 73.1 57.7 72.6 71.4 68.2 66.5 64.2 62.4 59.3 58.5 57.9 63.9 10.0 73.9 1 63.3 71.5 58.1 70.9 69.8 67.5 66.2 63.8 61.9 59.2 58.7 58.3 63.3 10.0 73.3 2 63.3 70.1 57.8 69.6 69.1 67.5 66.3 64.0 62.2 59.1 58.5 57.9 63.3 10.0 73.3 3 65.7 71.1 61.1 70.8 70.4 69.0 68.2 66.6 65.2 62.2 61.7 61.2 65.7 10.0 75.7 4 66.2 72.5 62.1 71.9 71.1 69.2 68.3 66.8 65.6 63.3 62.7 62.2 66.2 10.0 76.2 5 67.5 73.1 63.7 72.7 72.1 70.8 70.2 68.1 66.6 64.6 64.2 63.8 67.5 10.0 77.5 6 67.5 72.9 64.3 72.5 72.0 70.3 69.5 68.0 67.0 65.1 64.7 64.4 67.5 10.0 77.5 7 67.1 75.8 63.0 75.0 73.9 70.7 69.1 67.1 65.9 64.0 63.5 63.1 67.1 0.0 67.1 8 65.9 73.5 62.0 73.0 72.1 69.5 68.1 66.2 64.9 62.9 62.5 62.1 65.9 0.0 65.9 9 67.8 75.3 62.8 74.6 73.6 71.5 70.5 68.4 66.8 64.0 63.5 62.9 67.8 0.0 67.8 10 66.2 74.8 62.5 74.2 73.0 70.1 68.4 66.3 65.0 63.3 63.0 62.6 66.2 0.0 66.2 11 66.3 75.6 62.0 74.8 73.8 70.9 69.1 65.9 64.7 62.9 62.5 62.0 66.3 0.0 66.3 12 66.1 74.1 62.7 73.4 72.3 69.5 68.3 66.3 65.2 63.4 63.1 62.8 66.1 0.0 66.1 13 66.0 78.0 59.9 77.2 75.8 72.0 69.1 64.0 62.4 60.7 60.4 60.0 66.0 0.0 66.0 14 66.1 78.4 59.6 77.8 76.6 72.4 69.1 63.0 61.7 60.2 60.0 59.6 66.1 0.0 66.1 15 66.8 76.2 63.0 75.3 74.0 70.8 69.2 66.6 65.4 63.7 63.4 63.1 66.8 0.0 66.8 16 67.2 76.1 63.5 75.4 74.2 71.4 70.0 67.0 65.7 64.1 63.8 63.6 67.2 0.0 67.2 17 65.4 73.0 61.8 72.4 71.2 68.8 67.6 65.6 64.5 62.6 62.3 61.9 65.4 0.0 65.4 18 66.6 73.0 63.9 72.5 71.6 69.6 68.6 66.8 65.9 64.6 64.3 64.0 66.6 0.0 66.6 19 67.3 74.1 63.9 73.6 72.7 70.6 69.6 67.5 66.5 64.7 64.3 64.0 67.3 5.0 72.3 20 66.2 71.7 62.8 71.4 70.9 69.5 68.4 66.6 65.5 63.6 63.3 62.9 66.2 5.0 71.2 21 65.9 71.9 62.0 71.5 71.0 69.3 68.4 66.3 65.1 63.0 62.5 62.1 65.9 5.0 70.9 22 65.0 70.9 61.0 70.4 69.9 68.4 67.5 65.6 64.2 62.0 61.5 61.1 65.0 10.0 75.0 23 63.5 68.9 59.2 68.6 68.0 66.6 66.0 64.3 62.7 60.3 59.8 59.3 63.5 10.0 73.5 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 65.4 73.0 59.6 72.4 71.2 68.8 67.6 63.0 61.7 60.2 60.0 59.6 Max 67.8 78.4 63.9 77.8 76.6 72.4 70.5 68.4 66.8 64.6 64.3 64.0

66.5 74.6 73.5 70.6 68.9 66.1 64.8 63.0 62.7 62.3
Min 65.9 71.7 62.0 71.4 70.9 69.3 68.4 66.3 65.1 63.0 62.5 62.1 Max 67.3 74.1 63.9 73.6 72.7 70.6 69.6 67.5 66.5 64.7 64.3 64.0

66.5 72.2 71.5 69.8 68.8 66.8 65.7 63.8 63.4 63.0
Min 63.3 68.9 57.7 68.6 68.0 66.6 66.0 63.8 61.9 59.1 58.5 57.9 Max 67.5 73.1 64.3 72.7 72.1 70.8 70.2 68.1 67.0 65.1 64.7 64.4

65.4 71.1 70.4 68.6 67.6 65.7 64.2 61.7 61.2 60.7
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

72.3 Evening
Day
Evening
(7pm-10pm)
Energy Average
Night
Day
(7am-7pm)
Night
(10pm-7am)
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

66.1 66.5 65.4
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
L1 - Located north of the Project site near single-family residence at 5778 Joshua Palmer Way.

63.9 63.3

63.3 65.7

66.2 67.5

67.5 67.1

65.9 67.8

66.2 66.3

66.1 66.0

66.1 66.8

67.2 65.4

66.6 67.3

66.2 65.9

65.0 63.5

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13841\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\13841_L1_V 79 1518
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13841
Project: Banning Point Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 54.4 57.9 51.2 57.7 57.6 57.0 56.5 55.2 54.0 52.0 51.7 51.4 54.4 10.0 64.4 1 61.4 65.8 56.8 65.6 65.4 64.7 64.3 62.5 60.9 57.6 57.2 56.9 61.4 10.0 71.4 2 58.9 63.4 54.5 63.1 62.7 62.0 61.5 59.9 58.3 55.8 55.4 54.7 58.9 10.0 68.9 3 60.8 65.4 54.8 65.2 64.9 64.3 64.0 62.4 60.0 55.6 55.2 54.9 60.8 10.0 70.8 4 57.1 59.9 54.9 59.7 59.5 59.0 58.7 57.6 56.9 55.6 55.3 55.0 57.1 10.0 67.1 5 61.7 65.9 57.9 65.8 65.6 65.0 64.6 62.6 60.9 58.6 58.3 58.0 61.7 10.0 71.7 6 62.9 67.9 59.0 67.6 67.4 66.6 65.9 64.0 61.7 59.6 59.3 59.1 62.9 10.0 72.9 7 59.1 62.1 57.1 61.9 61.7 61.2 60.9 59.7 58.9 57.6 57.4 57.2 59.1 0.0 59.1 8 57.5 62.0 51.1 61.7 61.6 61.0 60.6 58.6 56.7 52.8 52.4 51.4 57.5 0.0 57.5 9 65.3 75.3 52.2 74.4 73.9 72.1 70.7 65.5 59.1 53.4 53.0 52.4 65.3 0.0 65.3 10 60.1 67.7 54.7 66.7 65.8 64.2 63.4 61.0 58.2 56.2 55.7 55.3 60.1 0.0 60.1 11 59.6 67.0 54.1 66.5 66.2 65.1 63.5 59.8 57.5 54.9 54.5 54.2 59.6 0.0 59.6 12 63.5 71.1 54.9 70.7 70.3 69.3 68.6 64.7 60.8 55.8 55.4 55.0 63.5 0.0 63.5 13 59.9 67.6 51.3 67.2 66.6 65.3 64.6 60.7 57.6 52.3 51.9 51.5 59.9 0.0 59.9 14 51.3 56.3 48.8 55.8 55.2 54.1 53.4 51.6 50.7 49.4 49.2 48.9 51.3 0.0 51.3 15 53.6 60.3 49.4 60.0 59.4 57.7 56.8 54.3 52.0 50.1 49.8 49.5 53.6 0.0 53.6 16 59.0 63.6 53.5 63.4 63.3 62.9 62.4 60.1 57.8 54.7 54.2 53.6 59.0 0.0 59.0 17 56.8 62.6 51.9 62.4 62.3 61.5 60.6 57.9 54.7 52.5 52.3 52.0 56.8 0.0 56.8 18 55.4 59.8 52.7 59.6 59.3 58.7 58.1 55.9 54.5 53.4 53.1 52.8 55.4 0.0 55.4 19 59.8 64.7 55.4 64.4 64.2 63.7 63.3 60.9 58.8 56.0 55.8 55.5 59.8 5.0 64.8 20 59.6 62.6 56.8 62.4 62.3 61.8 61.4 60.3 59.3 57.4 57.2 56.9 59.6 5.0 64.6 21 62.0 68.9 55.7 68.7 68.5 68.0 67.3 62.5 57.9 56.3 56.0 55.8 62.0 5.0 67.0 22 57.6 61.3 54.5 61.1 60.9 60.4 60.2 58.6 56.8 55.2 54.9 54.6 57.6 10.0 67.6 23 58.7 63.7 53.7 63.5 63.4 62.9 62.3 59.3 57.8 54.5 54.2 53.8 58.7 10.0 68.7 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 51.3 56.3 48.8 55.8 55.2 54.1 53.4 51.6 50.7 49.4 49.2 48.9 Max 65.3 75.3 57.1 74.4 73.9 72.1 70.7 65.5 60.8 57.6 57.4 57.2

60.0 64.2 63.8 62.8 62.0 59.2 56.5 53.6 53.2 52.8
Min 59.6 62.6 55.4 62.4 62.3 61.8 61.4 60.3 57.9 56.0 55.8 55.5 Max 62.0 68.9 56.8 68.7 68.5 68.0 67.3 62.5 59.3 57.4 57.2 56.9

60.6 65.2 65.0 64.5 64.0 61.2 58.7 56.6 56.3 56.1
Min 54.4 57.9 51.2 57.7 57.6 57.0 56.5 55.2 54.0 52.0 51.7 51.4 Max 62.9 67.9 59.0 67.6 67.4 66.6 65.9 64.0 61.7 59.6 59.3 59.1

60.0 63.3 63.0 62.4 62.0 60.2 58.6 56.1 55.7 55.4
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

66.7 Evening
Day
Evening
(7pm-10pm)
Energy Average
Night
Day
(7am-7pm)
Night
(10pm-7am)
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

60.1 60.1 60.0
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
L2 - Located east of the Project site near single-family residence at 350 Northwood Avenue.

54.4 61.4

58.9 60.8

57.1 61.7

62.9 59.1

57.5 65.3

60.1 59.6

63.5 59.9

51.3 53.6

59.0 56.8

55.4 59.8

59.6 62.0

57.6 58.7

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13841\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\13841_L2_O 80 1519
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13841
Project: Banning Point Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 50.5 55.1 47.3 54.8 54.4 53.4 52.7 51.1 49.9 48.0 47.7 47.4 50.5 10.0 60.5 1 58.0 62.2 54.3 61.9 61.5 60.9 60.5 58.8 57.4 55.0 54.7 54.4 58.0 10.0 68.0 2 56.0 60.3 52.7 60.0 59.8 59.4 59.0 57.8 56.2 53.7 53.3 52.8 56.0 10.0 66.0 3 57.3 60.7 53.6 60.5 60.3 59.8 59.4 58.2 56.9 54.7 54.3 53.7 57.3 10.0 67.3 4 55.6 58.7 52.3 58.6 58.4 58.0 57.8 56.7 55.2 53.2 52.8 52.4 55.6 10.0 65.6 5 60.3 64.9 57.2 64.7 64.4 63.6 63.2 61.8 60.1 58.2 57.8 57.3 60.3 10.0 70.3 6 61.2 65.0 58.4 64.8 64.5 63.8 63.3 61.9 60.8 59.1 58.8 58.5 61.2 10.0 71.2 7 59.6 62.4 57.5 62.2 61.9 61.4 61.1 60.1 59.3 58.1 57.8 57.6 59.6 0.0 59.6 8 50.2 58.1 46.5 56.9 56.0 54.1 52.9 50.9 49.0 47.1 46.8 46.6 50.2 0.0 50.2 9 48.8 55.2 44.6 54.5 53.9 52.9 52.2 49.8 47.3 45.4 45.0 44.7 48.8 0.0 48.8 10 53.9 60.0 47.4 59.6 59.3 58.3 57.0 54.5 52.9 49.2 48.5 47.6 53.9 0.0 53.9 11 49.0 53.3 46.0 53.0 52.7 52.2 51.8 49.6 48.1 46.6 46.3 46.1 49.0 0.0 49.0 12 51.5 55.8 48.5 55.4 55.1 54.3 53.7 52.3 50.8 49.2 48.9 48.6 51.5 0.0 51.5 13 52.2 66.4 48.8 65.6 64.5 61.6 59.4 53.0 51.3 49.5 49.2 48.9 52.2 0.0 52.2 14 50.4 55.3 47.3 55.0 54.6 53.6 53.1 51.1 49.5 47.9 47.6 47.4 50.4 0.0 50.4 15 53.5 70.6 48.4 69.8 68.7 64.7 62.9 60.0 53.4 49.2 48.9 48.5 53.5 0.0 53.5 16 52.4 57.3 49.4 56.9 56.4 55.5 54.8 53.0 51.7 50.0 49.8 49.5 52.4 0.0 52.4 17 52.6 60.6 49.7 60.2 59.6 58.5 58.0 54.4 51.9 50.3 50.1 49.8 52.6 0.0 52.6 18 52.1 56.7 49.8 56.3 55.8 54.9 54.1 52.5 51.6 50.4 50.1 49.9 52.1 0.0 52.1 19 56.1 61.8 52.8 61.5 61.2 60.4 59.8 57.3 55.6 53.8 53.4 52.9 56.1 5.0 61.1 20 57.4 60.1 55.4 59.8 59.6 59.1 58.8 57.9 57.1 56.0 55.8 55.5 57.4 5.0 62.4 21 58.0 63.6 56.3 63.3 63.0 62.5 62.1 60.9 58.4 56.9 56.6 56.4 58.0 5.0 63.0 22 57.0 59.7 54.7 59.5 59.3 58.9 58.6 57.7 56.7 55.4 55.1 54.8 57.0 10.0 67.0 23 56.8 60.9 53.6 60.7 60.5 59.8 59.3 57.6 56.1 54.4 54.0 53.7 56.8 10.0 66.8 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 48.8 53.3 44.6 53.0 52.7 52.2 51.8 49.6 47.3 45.4 45.0 44.7 Max 59.6 70.6 57.5 69.8 68.7 64.7 62.9 60.1 59.3 58.1 57.8 57.6

53.3 58.8 58.2 56.8 55.9 53.4 51.4 49.4 49.1 48.8
Min 56.1 60.1 52.8 59.8 59.6 59.1 58.8 57.3 55.6 53.8 53.4 52.9 Max 58.0 63.6 56.3 63.3 63.0 62.5 62.1 60.9 58.4 56.9 56.6 56.4

57.2 61.5 61.2 60.7 60.3 58.7 57.0 55.5 55.3 54.9
Min 50.5 55.1 47.3 54.8 54.4 53.4 52.7 51.1 49.9 48.0 47.7 47.4 Max 61.2 65.0 58.4 64.8 64.5 63.8 63.3 61.9 60.8 59.1 58.8 58.5

57.8 60.6 60.3 59.7 59.3 58.0 56.6 54.6 54.3 53.9

57.8 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
L3 - Located east of the Project site near The Lakes - Assisted Living & and Memory Care at 5801 Sun Lakes Boulevard.
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

64.1 Evening
Day
Evening
(7pm-10pm)
Energy Average
Night
Day
(7am-7pm)
Night
(10pm-7am)
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

56.0 54.4

50.5 58.0

56.0 57.3

55.6 60.3

61.2 59.6

50.248.8

53.9 49.051.552.250.4

53.5 52.452.652.1

56.1 57.4

58.0 57.0

56.8 35.0

40.0 45.0

50.0 55.0

60.0 65.0

70.0 75.0

80.0 85.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13841\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\13841_L3_Q 81 1520
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13841
Project: Banning Point Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 55.7 68.7 50.0 67.7 66.2 61.7 57.9 52.4 51.5 50.4 50.2 50.0 55.7 10.0 65.7 1 57.2 64.4 53.2 64.2 63.5 61.5 59.8 57.2 56.1 54.1 53.6 53.3 57.2 10.0 67.2 2 54.9 59.5 52.4 59.1 58.8 57.7 57.0 55.4 54.3 53.0 52.7 52.5 54.9 10.0 64.9 3 56.8 65.0 52.5 64.6 64.0 62.1 60.4 56.2 55.1 53.2 52.9 52.5 56.8 10.0 66.8 4 58.3 70.7 50.3 70.0 68.9 65.3 62.3 55.1 52.8 51.0 50.7 50.4 58.3 10.0 68.3 5 62.0 71.2 57.9 70.8 70.0 67.3 65.1 61.3 60.0 58.5 58.2 58.0 62.0 10.0 72.0 6 64.1 74.3 58.6 73.9 73.1 70.5 68.0 62.6 60.9 59.3 59.0 58.8 64.1 10.0 74.1 7 64.4 75.1 57.8 74.7 73.9 71.3 68.9 62.4 60.1 58.4 58.2 57.9 64.4 0.0 64.4 8 64.1 75.8 50.6 75.4 74.5 71.7 69.3 61.8 56.5 51.8 51.3 50.8 64.1 0.0 64.1 9 65.5 76.5 48.5 76.0 75.2 72.9 71.1 64.2 58.0 50.4 49.4 48.6 65.5 0.0 65.5 10 66.1 76.6 49.4 76.1 75.3 73.2 71.7 65.5 59.7 51.2 50.3 49.6 66.1 0.0 66.1 11 67.3 77.6 53.3 77.2 76.4 74.2 72.7 67.1 61.3 55.3 54.1 53.5 67.3 0.0 67.3 12 67.2 77.3 52.2 76.8 76.1 74.1 72.8 67.3 60.6 53.7 53.0 52.4 67.2 0.0 67.2 13 67.2 77.3 52.0 76.9 76.1 74.0 72.8 67.0 60.7 53.3 52.6 52.1 67.2 0.0 67.2 14 66.7 77.6 51.6 77.2 76.4 74.3 72.6 66.9 60.3 53.3 52.3 51.7 66.7 0.0 66.7 15 67.9 92.2 53.0 91.3 90.3 86.6 83.4 74.5 63.4 55.0 53.9 53.1 67.9 0.0 67.9 16 67.9 78.5 51.6 77.9 77.1 75.1 73.6 67.3 60.6 53.0 52.2 51.7 67.9 0.0 67.9 17 66.6 77.8 50.6 77.4 76.6 73.9 72.1 65.4 57.8 51.7 51.2 50.7 66.6 0.0 66.6 18 65.4 76.8 49.8 76.3 75.5 72.9 71.0 64.0 55.9 50.6 50.2 49.9 65.4 0.0 65.4 19 65.8 78.9 52.9 78.5 77.6 75.0 72.5 64.4 58.1 53.7 53.3 53.0 65.8 5.0 70.8 20 63.8 75.5 54.8 75.1 74.2 71.4 69.0 60.1 56.8 55.3 55.1 54.9 63.8 5.0 68.8 21 63.4 74.2 55.8 73.8 73.0 70.3 68.4 61.8 58.6 56.5 56.1 55.9 63.4 5.0 68.4 22 60.7 72.4 53.6 71.9 71.0 68.0 65.1 57.9 55.8 54.2 53.9 53.7 60.7 10.0 70.7 23 58.6 69.8 52.4 69.3 68.5 65.6 62.8 55.8 54.4 53.0 52.8 52.5 58.6 10.0 68.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 64.1 75.1 48.5 74.7 73.9 71.3 68.9 61.8 55.9 50.4 49.4 48.6 Max 67.9 92.2 57.8 91.3 90.3 86.6 83.4 74.5 63.4 58.4 58.2 57.9

66.5 77.8 77.0 74.5 72.7 66.1 59.6 53.2 52.4 51.8
Min 63.4 74.2 52.9 73.8 73.0 70.3 68.4 60.1 56.8 53.7 53.3 53.0 Max 65.8 78.9 55.8 78.5 77.6 75.0 72.5 64.4 58.6 56.5 56.1 55.9

64.5 75.8 74.9 72.2 70.0 62.1 57.8 55.2 54.9 54.6
Min 54.9 59.5 50.0 59.1 58.8 57.7 57.0 52.4 51.5 50.4 50.2 50.0 Max 64.1 74.3 58.6 73.9 73.1 70.5 68.0 62.6 60.9 59.3 59.0 58.8

59.7 67.9 67.1 64.4 62.0 57.1 55.7 54.1 53.8 53.5
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

68.4 Evening
Day
Evening
(7pm-10pm)
Energy Average
Night
Day
(7am-7pm)
Night
(10pm-7am)
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

64.7 66.2 59.7
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
L4 - Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 5933 Oakmont Drive.

55.7 57.2

54.9 56.8

58.3 62.0

64.1 64.4

64.1 65.5

66.1 67.3

67.2 67.2

66.7 67.9

67.9 66.6

65.4 65.8

63.8 63.4

60.7 58.6

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13841\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\13841_L4_G 82 1521
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13841
Project: Banning Point Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 53.1 62.0 49.6 61.7 61.1 58.2 56.0 52.5 50.6 49.9 49.8 49.7 53.1 10.0 63.1 1 54.6 57.5 52.6 57.3 57.1 56.6 56.2 55.1 54.3 53.1 52.9 52.7 54.6 10.0 64.6 2 53.7 56.3 51.8 56.0 55.9 55.4 55.1 54.4 53.5 52.4 52.2 51.9 53.7 10.0 63.7 3 53.4 56.8 51.1 56.7 56.4 55.6 55.1 54.0 53.1 51.6 51.4 51.2 53.4 10.0 63.4 4 53.7 60.0 50.4 59.6 59.3 58.3 57.4 53.4 52.2 51.1 50.8 50.5 53.7 10.0 63.7 5 58.0 61.8 55.7 61.6 61.3 60.3 59.7 58.6 57.7 56.3 56.1 55.8 58.0 10.0 68.0 6 59.9 63.5 58.1 63.3 63.0 62.1 61.5 60.4 59.5 58.5 58.4 58.1 59.9 10.0 69.9 7 59.9 65.0 58.1 64.7 64.2 62.8 61.9 60.0 59.2 58.5 58.3 58.2 59.9 0.0 59.9 8 60.9 70.4 55.0 69.6 68.7 66.9 65.4 61.0 57.0 55.5 55.3 55.1 60.9 0.0 60.9 9 58.4 63.9 56.0 63.5 63.1 61.8 60.9 58.8 57.5 56.3 56.2 56.1 58.4 0.0 58.4 10 58.6 64.7 55.4 64.3 63.9 62.9 62.0 59.0 57.3 55.8 55.7 55.5 58.6 0.0 58.6 11 58.0 64.2 54.9 63.9 63.4 62.0 61.0 58.3 56.7 55.3 55.1 55.0 58.0 0.0 58.0 12 58.4 64.7 54.8 64.5 64.1 62.8 61.6 58.8 57.0 55.3 55.1 54.9 58.4 0.0 58.4 13 58.6 64.8 55.3 64.4 63.9 62.4 61.6 58.9 57.4 55.8 55.6 55.4 58.6 0.0 58.6 14 60.0 69.3 55.5 68.7 67.9 66.3 64.3 59.0 57.4 56.0 55.8 55.6 60.0 0.0 60.0 15 59.5 78.1 56.1 77.8 77.0 73.7 71.5 60.7 58.0 56.6 56.4 56.2 59.5 0.0 59.5 16 58.8 64.9 56.0 64.4 63.9 62.4 61.5 59.2 57.6 56.4 56.3 56.1 58.8 0.0 58.8 17 59.2 66.8 55.9 66.4 65.9 64.0 62.7 59.1 57.4 56.3 56.1 56.0 59.2 0.0 59.2 18 60.4 68.4 56.2 68.1 67.7 66.6 64.9 59.5 57.3 56.5 56.4 56.3 60.4 0.0 60.4 19 61.1 69.4 56.8 69.2 68.9 67.7 65.7 59.8 57.9 57.0 56.9 56.8 61.1 5.0 66.1 20 58.8 64.3 57.2 64.1 63.8 62.0 60.4 58.6 57.9 57.4 57.4 57.3 58.8 5.0 63.8 21 59.4 63.6 57.7 63.3 62.9 62.1 61.3 59.6 59.0 58.0 57.9 57.8 59.4 5.0 64.4 22 58.0 62.1 56.7 61.7 61.4 60.6 59.4 58.0 57.5 57.0 56.9 56.8 58.0 10.0 68.0 23 54.9 60.8 53.4 60.2 59.5 57.7 56.5 54.7 54.2 53.7 53.6 53.5 54.9 10.0 64.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 58.0 63.9 54.8 63.5 63.1 61.8 60.9 58.3 56.7 55.3 55.1 54.9 Max 60.9 78.1 58.1 77.8 77.0 73.7 71.5 61.0 59.2 58.5 58.3 58.2

59.3 66.7 66.1 64.5 63.3 59.4 57.5 56.2 56.0 55.9
Min 58.8 63.6 56.8 63.3 62.9 62.0 60.4 58.6 57.9 57.0 56.9 56.8 Max 61.1 69.4 57.7 69.2 68.9 67.7 65.7 59.8 59.0 58.0 57.9 57.8

59.9 65.5 65.2 63.9 62.5 59.4 58.3 57.5 57.4 57.3
Min 53.1 56.3 49.6 56.0 55.9 55.4 55.1 52.5 50.6 49.9 49.8 49.7 Max 59.9 63.5 58.1 63.3 63.0 62.1 61.5 60.4 59.5 58.5 58.4 58.1

56.2 59.8 59.4 58.3 57.5 55.7 54.7 53.7 53.6 53.4

56.2 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
L5 - Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 6111 Wingfoot Avenue.
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

63.7 Evening
Day
Evening
(7pm-10pm)
Energy Average
Night
Day
(7am-7pm)
Night
(10pm-7am)
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

58.5 59.4

53.1 54.6

53.7 53.4

53.7 58.0

59.9 59.9

60.9 58.4

58.6 58.0

58.4 58.6

60.0 59.5

58.8 59.2

60.4 61.1

58.8 59.4

58.0 54.9

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13841\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\13841_L5_Y 83 1522
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
84 1523
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
APPENDIX 7.1:

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
85 1524
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
86 1525
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps
Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E
32,793

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,732 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 67.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.68 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%
-0.69
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -12.84 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -5.22 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.5 62.1 60.4 56.8 64.4 64.8

58.8 72.8

57.5 53.2 52.5 59.9 60.1

70.6 69.6 68.5 75.2 75.6
Vehicle Noise: 73.5 71.4 70.2 68.9 75.7 76.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
161 347 747 1,609
169 364 784 1,689
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps
Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E+P
32,953

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,745 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.70 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.92%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.93%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.16%
-0.69
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -12.84 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -5.22 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.6 62.1 60.5 56.8 64.4 64.9

58.8 72.8

57.5 53.2 52.5 59.9 60.1

70.6 69.6 68.5 75.2 75.6
Vehicle Noise: 73.5 71.4 70.2 68.9 75.7 76.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
161 347 747 1,609
169 364 784 1,690
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps
Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040
42,498

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,540 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

4.80 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -11.72 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -4.09 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.7 63.2 61.6 57.9 65.5 66.0

59.9 74.0

58.7 54.4 53.6 61.0 61.3

71.8 70.8 69.6 76.4 76.7
Vehicle Noise: 74.6 72.5 71.3 70.0 76.8 77.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
191 412 887 1,912
201 433 932 2,008
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps
Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
42,658

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,553 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

4.82 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.90%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.93%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.17%
-0.69
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -11.72 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -4.09 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.7 63.3 61.6 57.9 65.5 66.0

59.9 74.0

58.7 54.4 53.6 61.0 61.3

71.8 70.8 69.6 76.4 76.7
Vehicle Noise: 74.6 72.5 71.3 70.0 76.8 77.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
191 412 888 1,912
201 433 932 2,009
Sunday, February 6, 2022
87 1526
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 2nd St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E
22,732

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,894 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.08 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -14.43 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -6.81 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.9 60.5 58.8 55.2 62.8 63.2

57.2 71.2

55.9 51.6 50.9 58.3 58.5

69.1 68.0 66.9 73.7 74.0
Vehicle Noise: 71.9 69.8 68.6 67.3 74.1 74.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
126 271 585 1,260
132 285 614 1,323
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 2nd St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E+P
24,370

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,030 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.52%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 2.28%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.20%
-0.69
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -13.42 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -6.51 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.2 60.8 59.1 55.5 63.1 63.5

58.2 71.5

57.0 52.6 51.9 59.3 59.6

69.4 68.3 67.2 74.0 74.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.2 70.1 68.9 67.6 74.4 74.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
132 285 614 1,323
139 299 645 1,389
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 2nd St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040
29,459

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,454 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.21 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -13.31 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -5.68 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.1 61.6 60.0 56.3 63.9 64.4

58.3 72.4

57.1 52.8 52.0 59.4 59.7

70.2 69.2 68.0 74.8 75.1
Vehicle Noise: 73.0 70.9 69.7 68.4 75.2 75.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
150 323 695 1,498
157 339 730 1,573
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 2nd St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
31,097

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,590 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.43 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.59%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 2.21%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -12.51 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -5.45 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.3 61.9 60.2 56.6 64.1 64.6

59.1 72.6

57.9 53.6 52.8 60.2 60.5

70.4 69.4 68.3 75.0 75.3
Vehicle Noise: 73.3 71.2 70.0 68.7 75.5 75.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
156 335 722 1,555
163 352 758 1,633
Sunday, February 6, 2022
88 1527
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E
15,725

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,310 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.48 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -16.04 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -8.41 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.3 58.9 57.2 53.6 61.2 61.6

55.6 69.6

54.3 50.0 49.3 56.7 56.9

67.5 66.4 65.3 72.1 72.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.3 68.2 67.0 65.7 72.5 72.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
99 212 457 985
104 223 480 1,035
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E+P
17,417

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,451 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.91 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.43%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 2.41%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -14.64 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -7.98 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.8 59.3 57.7 54.0 61.6 62.1

57.0 70.1

55.7 51.4 50.7 58.1 58.3

67.9 66.9 65.7 72.5 72.8
Vehicle Noise: 70.7 68.7 67.5 66.1 73.0 73.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
106 228 490 1,056
111 239 515 1,109
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040
21,649

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,803 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

1.87 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -14.65 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -7.02 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.7 60.3 58.6 55.0 62.6 63.0

57.0 71.0

55.7 51.4 50.7 58.1 58.3

68.8 67.8 66.7 73.4 73.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 69.6 68.4 67.1 73.9 74.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
122 263 566 1,220
128 276 595 1,281
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: n/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
23,341

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,944 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.18 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.54%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 2.29%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -13.59 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -6.71 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.0 60.6 58.9 55.3 62.9 63.3

58.0 71.3

56.8 52.5 51.7 59.1 59.4

69.2 68.1 67.0 73.8 74.1
Vehicle Noise: 72.0 69.9 68.7 67.4 74.2 74.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
128 277 596 1,284
135 290 626 1,348
Sunday, February 6, 2022
89 1528
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: s/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E
8,272

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 689 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -18.82 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -11.20 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

57.6 56.1 54.4 50.8 58.4 58.9

52.8 66.9

51.6 47.2 46.5 53.9 54.2

64.7 63.7 62.5 69.3 69.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.5 65.4 64.2 62.9 69.7 70.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
64 138 298 642
67 145 313 674
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: s/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: E+P
8,426

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 702 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 87.09%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.90%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.01%
-0.69
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -18.82 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -11.20 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

57.6 56.2 54.5 50.9 58.5 58.9

52.8 66.9

51.6 47.2 46.5 53.9 54.2

64.7 63.7 62.5 69.3 69.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.5 65.4 64.2 62.9 69.7 70.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
64 139 298 643
68 145 313 675
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: s/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040
21,900

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,824 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

1.92 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -14.60 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -6.97 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.8 60.4 58.7 55.0 62.6 63.1

57.0 71.1

55.8 51.5 50.7 58.1 58.4

68.9 67.9 66.7 73.5 73.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 69.6 68.5 67.1 74.0 74.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
123 265 570 1,229
129 278 599 1,291
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: s/o 1st St.

Road Name: Highland Springs Av.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
22,054

8.33%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,837 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

1.96 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.95%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.92%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.13%
-0.69
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -14.60 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -6.97 -0.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

54.708

54.546

54.562
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.8 60.4 58.7 55.1 62.7 63.1

57.0 71.1

55.8 51.5 50.7 58.1 58.4

68.9 67.9 66.7 73.5 73.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 69.6 68.5 67.1 74.0 74.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
123 265 571 1,229
129 278 599 1,291
Sunday, February 6, 2022
90 1529
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: w/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: 1st St.

Scenario: E
9,557

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 796 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.44
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.96 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -12.33 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.5 63.1 61.4 57.8 65.4 65.8

59.0 71.5

57.8 53.5 52.8 60.2 60.4

69.3 68.3 67.1 73.9 74.2
Vehicle Noise: 72.5 70.4 69.2 67.7 74.6 74.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
101 218 471 1,014
107 230 495 1,066
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: w/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: 1st St.

Scenario: E+P
9,732

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 811 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.35
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 87.09%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.90%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.01%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.96 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -12.33 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.6 63.2 61.5 57.9 65.5 65.9

59.0 71.5

57.8 53.5 52.8 60.2 60.4

69.3 68.3 67.1 73.9 74.2
Vehicle Noise: 72.5 70.5 69.2 67.7 74.6 74.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
102 219 471 1,015
107 230 495 1,067
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: w/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: 1st St.

Scenario: HY 2040
12,385

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,032 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.31
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.83 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -11.21 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

65.7 64.2 62.5 58.9 66.5 67.0

60.2 72.6

58.9 54.6 53.9 61.3 61.5

70.4 69.4 68.2 75.0 75.3
Vehicle Noise: 73.6 71.6 70.3 68.9 75.7 76.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
120 260 559 1,205
127 273 588 1,267
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: w/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: 1st St.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
12,560

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,046 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.24
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 87.04%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.91%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.05%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.83 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -11.21 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

65.7 64.3 62.6 59.0 66.6 67.0

60.2 72.6

58.9 54.6 53.9 61.3 61.5

70.4 69.4 68.2 75.0 75.3
Vehicle Noise: 73.6 71.6 70.3 68.9 75.7 76.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
121 260 560 1,206
127 273 589 1,268
Sunday, February 6, 2022
91 1530
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: E
7,439

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 620 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.44
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.96 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -12.33 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.4 58.9 57.3 53.6 61.2 61.7

55.3 68.8

54.1 49.8 49.1 56.5 56.7

66.6 65.6 64.4 71.2 71.5
Vehicle Noise: 69.5 67.5 66.3 64.9 71.7 72.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
65 141 303 653
69 148 318 686
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: E+P
9,460

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 788 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.41
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.53%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 2.74%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 10.72%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -17.40 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -11.48 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.4 60.0 58.3 54.7 62.2 62.7

57.9 69.6

56.7 52.3 51.6 59.0 59.3

67.4 66.4 65.3 72.0 72.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.5 68.5 67.2 65.8 72.7 73.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
75 162 349 753
79 170 367 791
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: HY 2040
12,459

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,038 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.20
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -17.72 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -10.09 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.6 61.2 59.5 55.9 63.5 63.9

57.6 71.0

56.3 52.0 51.3 58.7 58.9

68.8 67.8 66.7 73.4 73.7
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 69.7 68.5 67.1 74.0 74.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
92 198 427 921
97 208 449 967
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Highland Springs Av.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
14,480

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,206 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.55
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.64%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 2.46%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 10.89%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -16.02 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -9.56 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.3 61.8 60.1 56.5 64.1 64.6

59.3 71.5

58.0 53.7 53.0 60.4 60.6

69.4 68.3 67.2 74.0 74.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.4 70.3 69.1 67.7 74.6 74.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
101 217 467 1,006
106 228 491 1,057
Sunday, February 6, 2022
92 1531
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: E
7,439

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 620 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.44
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.96 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -12.33 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.4 58.9 57.3 53.6 61.2 61.7

55.3 68.8

54.1 49.8 49.1 56.5 56.7

66.6 65.6 64.4 71.2 71.5
Vehicle Noise: 69.5 67.5 66.3 64.9 71.7 72.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
65 141 303 653
69 148 318 686
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: E+P
8,250

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 687 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.92
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 88.15%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.75%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 10.11%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.96 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -12.33 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.9 59.5 57.8 54.1 61.7 62.2

55.3 68.8

54.1 49.8 49.1 56.5 56.7

66.6 65.6 64.4 71.2 71.5
Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.6 66.3 64.9 71.8 72.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
66 142 305 658
69 149 321 691
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: HY 2040
9,641

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 803 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.31
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -18.83 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -11.20 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.5 60.1 58.4 54.8 62.3 62.8

56.5 69.9

55.2 50.9 50.2 57.6 57.8

67.7 66.7 65.6 72.3 72.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.7 68.6 67.4 66.0 72.9 73.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
78 167 360 776
82 176 378 815
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Sun Lakes Village Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
10,452

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 871 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.91
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 87.87%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.79%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 10.34%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -18.83 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -11.20 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.9 60.5 58.8 55.2 62.7 63.2

56.5 69.9

55.2 50.9 50.2 57.6 57.8

67.7 66.7 65.6 72.3 72.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.7 68.7 67.5 66.1 72.9 73.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
78 168 362 780
82 177 381 820
Sunday, February 6, 2022
93 1532
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Country Club Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: E
6,635

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 553 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.93
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -20.45 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -12.83 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.9 58.4 56.8 53.1 60.7 61.2

54.8 68.3

53.6 49.3 48.6 56.0 56.2

66.1 65.1 63.9 70.7 71.0
Vehicle Noise: 69.0 67.0 65.8 64.4 71.2 71.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
60 130 281 605
64 137 295 635
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Country Club Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: E+P
7,690

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 641 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.20
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 88.66%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.67%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 9.67%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -20.45 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -12.83 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.6 59.2 57.5 53.9 61.5 61.9

54.8 68.3

53.6 49.3 48.6 56.0 56.2

66.1 65.1 63.9 70.7 71.0
Vehicle Noise: 69.1 67.1 65.9 64.5 71.3 71.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
61 132 284 611
64 138 298 642
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Country Club Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: HY 2040
8,598

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 716 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.81
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 86.85%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.94%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 11.21%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.33 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -11.70 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.0 59.6 57.9 54.3 61.9 62.3

56.0 69.4

54.7 50.4 49.7 57.1 57.3

67.2 66.2 65.1 71.8 72.1
Vehicle Noise: 70.2 68.1 66.9 65.5 72.4 72.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
72 155 334 719
76 163 351 755
Sunday, February 6, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Banning Point
Job Number: 13841
Road Segment: e/o Country Club Dr.

Road Name: Sun Lakes Blvd.

Scenario: HY 2040+P
9,654

8.33%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 804 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.23
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 71.9% 12.2% 15.9% 88.29%

75.3% 7.0% 17.7% 1.72%

60.4% 12.0% 27.6% 9.98%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.33 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -11.70 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.147

43.947

43.966
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.6 60.1 58.5 54.8 62.4 62.9

56.0 69.4

54.7 50.4 49.7 57.1 57.3

67.2 66.2 65.1 71.8 72.1
Vehicle Noise: 70.2 68.2 67.0 65.6 72.4 72.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
72 156 336 725
76 164 354 762
Sunday, February 6, 2022
94 1533
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
APPENDIX 9.1:

CADNAAOPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
95 1534
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
96 1535
13841 - Banning Point
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 13841_05.cna
Date: 29.11.21
Analyst: S. Shami
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Country (user defined)
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (RLS-90)
Strictly acc. to RLS-90
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 47.4 46.4 52.9 55.0 68.3 0.0 5.00 a 6352327.53 2281636.15 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 38.4 37.3 43.8 55.0 60.4 0.0 5.00 a 6353218.80 2280950.82 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 44.1 42.9 49.3 55.0 57.0 0.0 5.00 a 6352587.29 2280352.73 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 45.8 44.6 51.0 55.0 64.5 0.0 5.00 a 6352225.31 2279816.27 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 45.8 44.7 51.1 55.0 63.1 0.0 5.00 a 6351378.09 2279812.80 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time K0 Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (dB) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE AC01 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6351250.55 2280077.57 35.00 POINTSOURCE AC02 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6351445.25 2280087.37 35.00 POINTSOURCE AC03 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6351826.24 2280077.57 35.00 POINTSOURCE AC04 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6351977.52 2280073.36 35.00 POINTSOURCE AC05 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6352166.62 2280066.36 35.00 POINTSOURCE AC06 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6352324.90 2280059.36 35.00 POINTSOURCE AC07 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6352294.84 2280347.91 50.00 POINTSOURCE AC08 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6351338.81 2280375.65 50.00 POINTSOURCE AC09 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6351348.42 2280965.69 50.00 POINTSOURCE AC10 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6352381.26 2280918.75 50.00 POINTSOURCE DT01 83.2 83.2 83.2 Lw 83.2 900.00 0.00 270.00 0.0 3.00 a 6351201.53 2280085.97 3.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc.
97 1536
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time K0 Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (dB) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE PARKING01 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351130.28 2280841.08 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING02 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351132.09 2280919.56 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING03 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351135.69 2280966.46 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING04 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351528.97 2279980.58 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING05 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351436.96 2279981.48 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING06 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351344.06 2279985.09 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING07 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351308.88 2280068.97 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING08 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351353.98 2280068.97 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING09 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351441.47 2280024.77 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING10 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351527.16 2280022.97 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING11 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351569.56 2280070.78 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING12 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351781.53 2280015.75 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING13 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351866.31 2280013.05 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING14 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351937.57 2280011.24 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING15 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352009.73 2280006.73 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING16 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352117.07 2280004.03 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING17 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352200.96 2280002.22 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING18 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352271.31 2279999.52 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING19 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352351.59 2279996.81 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING20 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352402.10 2280052.74 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING21 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352097.23 2280059.95 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING22 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351740.03 2280068.97 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING23 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352049.42 2280061.76 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING24 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351615.56 2280068.97 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING25 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351694.93 2280070.78 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING26 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352155.86 2280206.98 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING27 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352104.44 2280208.78 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING28 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352040.40 2280212.39 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING29 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351991.69 2280213.29 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING30 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351910.51 2280214.19 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING31 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351861.80 2280216.00 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING32 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351796.86 2280218.70 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING33 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351736.43 2280225.02 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING34 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351566.85 2280229.53 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING35 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351468.53 2280233.14 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING36 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352382.26 2280188.94 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING37 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352328.14 2280192.55 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING38 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352375.04 2280236.74 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING39 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352329.94 2280240.35 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING40 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352433.67 2281046.74 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING41 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352354.30 2281050.35 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING42 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352172.99 2281059.37 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING43 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352105.34 2281061.17 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING44 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352034.99 2281062.98 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING45 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351964.63 2281064.78 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING46 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351891.57 2281066.58 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING47 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351830.23 2281068.39 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING48 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351762.58 2281069.29 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING49 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351681.40 2281070.19 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING50 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351611.05 2281071.09 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING51 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351539.79 2281072.00 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING52 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351464.92 2281075.60 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING53 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351323.31 2281080.11 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING54 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351232.21 2281083.72 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING55 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351133.89 2281088.23 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARKING56 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw 79 900.00 0.00 540.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351059.93 2281092.74 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH01 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89.0 150.00 0.00 90.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352275.65 2281044.09 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH02 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89.0 150.00 0.00 90.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351423.40 2280250.73 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH03 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89.0 150.00 0.00 90.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351552.71 2280121.43 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH04 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89.0 150.00 0.00 90.00 0.0 5.00 a 6351908.81 2280109.09 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH05 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89.0 150.00 0.00 90.00 0.0 5.00 a 6352247.40 2280099.54 5.00 Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) LINESOURCE TRUCK01 93.2 93.2 93.2 65.5 65.5 65.5 Lw 93.2 900.00 0.00 540.00 8 LINESOURCE TRUCK02 93.2 93.2 93.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 Lw 93.2 900.00 0.00 540.00 8 LINESOURCE TRUCK03 93.2 93.2 93.2 66.8 66.8 66.8 Lw 93.2 900.00 0.00 540.00 8 Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6352250.37 2280957.65 8.00 0.00
6352253.46 2280988.03 8.00 0.00
6351225.34 2281021.65 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
98 1537
Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6351215.53 2280999.24 8.00 0.00
6351211.33 2280728.90 8.00 0.00
6351201.53 2280710.69 8.00 0.00
6351177.71 2280698.08 8.00 0.00
6351160.91 2280686.88 8.00 0.00
6351159.51 2280671.47 8.00 0.00
6351160.91 2280649.06 8.00 0.00
6351229.54 2280527.20 8.00 0.00
6351212.73 2280210.63 8.00 0.00
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6352242.55 2280309.96 8.00 0.00
6352240.86 2280256.86 8.00 0.00
6351376.62 2280284.87 8.00 0.00
6351376.62 2280198.03 8.00 0.00
6351354.20 2280192.43 8.00 0.00
6351305.18 2280191.02 8.00 0.00
6351253.35 2280196.63 8.00 0.00
6351232.34 2280205.03 8.00 0.00
6351212.73 2280210.63 8.00 0.00
6351173.51 2280192.43 8.00 0.00
6351093.16 2280164.20 8.00 0.00
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6352230.82 2280257.18 8.00 0.00
6352228.44 2280184.37 8.00 0.00
6352234.01 2280177.86 8.00 0.00
6352241.91 2280171.36 8.00 0.00
6352251.67 2280168.11 8.00 0.00
6352490.48 2280160.67 8.00 0.00
6352515.44 2280972.08 8.00 0.00
6352502.17 2280979.63 8.00 0.00
6352488.26 2280979.63 8.00 0.00
6352253.46 2280988.03 8.00 0.00
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) AREASOURCE DOCK01 111.5 111.5 111.5 74.4 74.4 74.4 Lw 111.5 900.00 0.00 540.00 8 AREASOURCE DOCK02 111.5 111.5 111.5 74.5 74.5 74.5 Lw 111.5 900.00 0.00 540.00 8 Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6351356.30 2280401.78 8.00 0.00
6352254.74 2280374.73 8.00 0.00
6352252.53 2280309.65 8.00 0.00
6351352.97 2280343.11 8.00 0.00
AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6352281.87 2280961.67 8.00 0.00
6352279.29 2280900.31 8.00 0.00
6351378.36 2280927.78 8.00 0.00
6351379.61 2280986.04 8.00 0.00
Barrier(s)
Name M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6351094.29 2279817.47 6.00 0.00 6351201.71 2279808.79 6.00 0.00
6351401.37 2279832.66 6.00 0.00
6351426.32 2279787.09 6.00 0.00
6351492.51 2279786.00 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6351721.68 2279755.84 6.00 0.00 6351745.12 2279783.18 6.00 0.00
6351893.55 2279848.28 6.00 0.00
6352749.02 2279819.64 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6352601.63 2280525.89 6.00 0.00 6352536.35 2280529.36 6.00 0.00
6352524.54 2279974.50 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6353216.61 2281065.79 6.00 0.00 6353207.07 2280506.76 6.00 0.00
BARRIERTEMP 0 14.00 a 6351019.96 2281122.79 14.00 0.00
6352497.39 2281076.07 14.00 0.00
BARRIERTEMP 0 14.00 a 6351413.95 2280270.88 14.00 0.00
6351411.67 2280214.88 14.00 0.00
6352186.97 2280191.67 14.00 0.00
6352189.25 2280247.21 14.00 0.00
BARRIERTEMP 0 14.00 a 6352254.79 2280245.39 14.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
99 1538
Name M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6352263.04 2280244.82 14.00 0.00
6352266.52 2280314.01 14.00 0.00
Building(s)
Name M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BUILDING BUILDING00001 x 0 45.00 a 6352284.30 2280956.61 45.00 0.00 6352341.19 2280954.08 45.00 0.00
6352340.88 2280943.59 45.00 0.00
6352400.39 2280943.59 45.00 0.00
6352372.92 2280322.71 45.00 0.00
6352312.59 2280324.38 45.00 0.00
6352313.42 2280312.73 45.00 0.00
6352252.66 2280314.39 45.00 0.00
6352254.74 2280374.73 45.00 0.00
6351356.30 2280401.78 45.00 0.00
6351352.97 2280343.11 45.00 0.00
6351293.05 2280345.19 45.00 0.00
6351293.05 2280356.42 45.00 0.00
6351233.54 2280358.50 45.00 0.00
6351261.42 2280978.96 45.00 0.00
6351320.51 2280975.63 45.00 0.00
6351322.19 2280989.73 45.00 0.00
6351379.61 2280986.04 45.00 0.00
6351378.36 2280927.78 45.00 0.00
6352279.29 2280900.31 45.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00006 x 0 30.00 a 6352115.75 2280090.10 30.00 0.00 6352205.67 2280088.11 30.00 0.00
6352203.68 2280032.41 30.00 0.00
6352163.09 2280034.40 30.00 0.00
6352163.49 2280029.63 30.00 0.00
6352113.76 2280030.02 30.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00002 x 0 30.00 a 6351225.71 2280099.88 30.00 0.00 6351258.73 2280098.29 30.00 0.00
6351258.73 2280093.91 30.00 0.00
6351263.90 2280093.91 30.00 0.00
6351264.30 2280081.58 30.00 0.00
6351258.33 2280081.58 30.00 0.00
6351258.73 2280038.21 30.00 0.00
6351224.11 2280039.40 30.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00003 x 0 30.00 a 6351381.44 2280115.00 30.00 0.00 6351501.20 2280112.21 30.00 0.00
6351498.82 2280055.32 30.00 0.00
6351379.06 2280056.11 30.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00004 x 0 30.00 a 6351759.08 2280101.13 30.00 0.00 6351877.85 2280097.43 30.00 0.00
6351875.58 2280041.89 30.00 0.00
6351755.84 2280042.34 30.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00005 x 0 30.00 a 6351921.36 2280097.78 30.00 0.00 6352010.08 2280094.20 30.00 0.00
6352009.68 2280035.71 30.00 0.00
6351960.35 2280036.90 30.00 0.00
6351960.35 2280040.88 30.00 0.00
6351920.16 2280041.68 30.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00007 x 0 30.00 a 6352246.93 2280088.74 30.00 0.00 6352367.88 2280085.16 30.00 0.00
6352365.50 2280025.48 30.00 0.00
6352246.13 2280031.84 30.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
100
1539
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
APPENDIX 10.1:

CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
101
1540
Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
13841-07 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
102
1541
13841 - Banning Point
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 13841_02 - Construction.cna Date: 29.06.21
Analyst: S. Shami
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Country (user defined)
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (RLS-90)
Strictly acc. to RLS-90
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 67.9 67.9 74.6 55.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6352327.53 2281636.15 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 60.9 60.9 67.6 55.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6353218.80 2280950.82 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 69.0 69.0 75.7 55.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6352587.29 2280352.73 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 68.5 68.5 75.2 55.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6352225.31 2279816.27 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 68.2 68.2 74.9 55.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6351378.09 2279812.80 5.00 Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) SITEBOUNDARY CONSTRUCTION 130.8 130.8 130.8 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw" 79 8 Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
SITEBOUNDARY 8.00 a 6351010.72 2281135.25 8.00 0.00
6352497.72 2281087.91 8.00 0.00
6352464.74 2279926.45 8.00 0.00
6351532.01 2279945.84 8.00 0.00
6351207.36 2279947.57 8.00 0.00
6351124.03 2279935.42 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
103
1542
Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6351096.25 2279957.99 8.00 0.00
6351088.44 2280015.28 8.00 0.00
6351085.83 2280105.56 8.00 0.00
6351086.70 2280137.68 8.00 0.00
6351097.52 2280182.12 8.00 0.00
6351182.59 2280237.68 8.00 0.00
6351180.85 2280544.97 8.00 0.00
6351007.24 2280869.62 8.00 0.00
Barrier(s)
Name M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6351094.29 2279817.47 6.00 0.00 6351201.71 2279808.79 6.00 0.00
6351401.37 2279832.66 6.00 0.00
6351426.32 2279787.09 6.00 0.00
6351492.51 2279786.00 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6351721.68 2279755.84 6.00 0.00 6351745.12 2279783.18 6.00 0.00
6351893.55 2279848.28 6.00 0.00
6352749.02 2279819.64 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6352601.63 2280525.89 6.00 0.00 6352536.35 2280529.36 6.00 0.00
6352524.54 2279974.50 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6353216.61 2281065.79 6.00 0.00 6353207.07 2280506.76 6.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
104
1543
1 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING
99 E Ramsey Street, Banning, CA
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 - 6:30 PM

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

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

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

No comments from the public.

Public comments closed.

III. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Brosious)
(Motion Carried 5-0) Passed.

To approve: Minutes – September 1, 2021, Regular Meeting.

IV. DISCUSSION ITEM:

AB 361 – Open meetings: state and local agencies: teleconferences.

Director Rush said we would need to make specific findings monthly for Commissioners who still wishes to participate via Zoom. City Council will provide policy direction at their next meeting.

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

1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21- 7002, THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLANS,

ELEVATIONS, AND STANDARDS FOR AN APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1544
2 CONSISTING OF 16 LOTS, INCLUDING ONE DETENTION BASIN/OPEN SPACE, DESIGN REVIEW INCLUDES THE REVIEW OF 15 SINGLE-FAMILY, ONESTORY HOMES WITH 4 TO 5 BEDROOMS AND ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGES. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (APN: 534-272-009).

R. Thomsen, applicant, was available for questions.

Commissioner Krick requested tubular steel or wrought iron fencing around the perimeter of the detention basin.

Applicant said the owner approved wrought iron fencing per County guidelines.

Public comments opened.

No comments from the public.

Public comments were closed by the Chair.

ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Brosious)
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2021-14:

I. Make a determination under CEQA Guidelines that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32-Infill Developments): and II. Approve Design Review 21-7002 to allow 15 single-family, one-story homes with 4 to 5 bedrooms and attached two-car garages in the Low DensityResidential (LDR) zoning district. (Motion Carried 5-0) Passed

2. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR DESIGN REVIEW 21-7011 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-8017 TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A 65-MEGAWATT BATTERY
ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY, WITH AN 85-FOOT-TALL GENERATION TIE-IN

POWER POLE, LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL (I) ZONE ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 GALLEHER WAY, (APN 541-220-024)
T. Miller, Electric Utility Director said this is great project, event thought the Banning Electric Utility won’t benefit, it will help the grid in the area.

Commissioner Brosious asked about facility operations and security protocols.

Commissioner Lopez asked about outdoor lighting and hours of operation.

Commissioner Santana asked if the intention is for other business to use this energy.

Commissioner Krick asked if there is a possibility of street dedication of Galleher Way.
1545
3 Public comments opened.

R. Phelps, resident of Banning asked what are the fire considerations that would affect the surrounding properties.

Public comments closed.

ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Santana)
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2021-15 recommending the City Council:

I. Make a determination under CEQA Guidelines that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects); and II. Approve Design Review 21-7011 and Conditional Use Permit 21-8017 for a proposed 65-megawatt battery energy storage facility with 85-foot-tall power pole on a 1.83-acre parcel of land in the Industrial (I) zoning district. (Motion Carried 5-0) Passed

3. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21-2504 TO ADOP THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT, IN THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA Public comments opened.

No comments from the public.

Public comments closed.

ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Lopez)
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2021-17 recommending the City Council:

I. Make a determination under CEQA Guidelines that the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to the adoption of a Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 15070 and 150702; and II. Approve General Plan Amendment 21-2504 recommending adoption of the 2021-2029 Hosing Element to the City Council.
(Motion Carried 5-0) Passed

4. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008 & TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21-4001, A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 620,000 SQUARE FEET WHICH INCLUDES 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND SIX (6) RETAIL/RESTAURANT BUILDINGS, TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET. THE TENTATIVE PARCEL 1546
4 MAP WILL SUBDIVIDE THE 37-ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE (3) LOTS, FOR

FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES, WITHIN THE SUN LAKE
VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN: 419-140-057).

Director Rush presented Modified Conditions of Approval:

Condition #16: Delete (Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m.)
Condition #26: Modify (clarify to say that “Developer to update Trip Generation Report to determine when installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Sun Lakes Boulevard and Future Driveway 3 (as shown in the TIA) and Country Club Drive will be necessary (either as part of initial construction or at a later date when the retail portion of the Project is constructed). Project applicant shall reach out to the Sun Lakes Country Club staff to coordinate temporary access during construction.”)
Condition #50: (clarify to sat that “Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall finalize the Trip Generation Report and submit the report to the Engineering Division for review and approval. All mitigation identified in the Trip Generation Report and this DR Approval shall be implemented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.”) Condition #70: Modify (include the word “public” before the word “improvements” to clarify this applies to public improvements only).

J. Everett, Director of Development - Creation Equity gave a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project.

Commissioner Krick had questions regarding truck traffic circulation within the facility, fencing and landscaping being proposed.

Commissioner Brosious asked if the front docking area will be at grade, and the number of truck visits it will generated per day.

J. Everett said the Specific Plan Amendment adopted reduces the number of trucks visits by 400 a day and hours of operation will be 24 hours 7 days a week.

Applicant said they are in discussion with staff to potentially extending the left turn deceleration lane on Sun Lakes Blvd. to allow for more cars to make the left turn and reduce the traffic congestion.

Director Rush said staff recommended that there be an updated traffic count at the time they are ready to submit improvement plans.

Commissioner Lopez asked if the length of the trucks were considered on the study during peak hours of traffic. He feels it needs to be clarity and be realistic about it. 1547
5 C. So, P.E.- Urban Crossroads said that a project-specific traffic was not done for the Specific Plan Amendment because it didn’t have a development plan associated with it. For the current plan they looked at trip generation assessment, but it did not go into detail for the items that will be looked in the future as mentioned by staff.

Commissioner Lopez asked for further studies be done for this project.

Commissioner Krick said there should be a separate lane for vehicles to queue in to get into the shopping center on Sun Lakes Blvd. Side without causing any problems for the public.

The applicant said they feel these requests can be accommodated and happy to look at alternatives for solutions the Planning Commission feels it’s appropriate.

Commissioner Santa asked if there are any stipulations on providing livable minimum wages that would help benefit the Banning residents.

J. Everett said this project will generate about 760 permanent jobs and provide electric vehicle charging stations. The future tenants will focus on hiring local people that are located within short distance of the site.

Commissioner krick asked questions about retail trash enclosures.

Director Rush said the City Council recently passed an ordinance regarding changes to the trash enclosures receptacles for retail businesses per State law.

Public comments opened.

Thirty (30) residents of Banning spoke against the project, primarily traffic problems, health assessment, noise, air pollution, emergency access and potential decrease in property values the proposed Industrial warehouse building would bring on the surrounding area.

Forty (40) emails received before the meeting against the proposed Industrial warehouse building; and
A petition for disapproval of the proposed Industrial warehouse building. One hundred twenty-two (122) signatures collected.

Public comments closed.

Commissioner Brosious asked if the project can be conditioned to widen Sun Lakes Blvd and go all the way to Highland Springs.

A. Vela, Public Works Director said current data would have to be analyzed.

J. Zemon-Creation Equity said language can be stipulated on the final plans regarding truck idling, the language will be stipulated in a covenant for the tenant. 1548
6 Commissioner Krick asked if the stop lights could be upgrade from Wilson Street to Sun Lakes Blvd.to alleviate concern of the community for emergency vehicles.

J. Zemon said he’s happy to take all comments in to account and hope to satisfy the community in terms of traffic circulation.

Commissioner Santana feels there is more information that needs to be covered to alleviate the community concerns.

ACTION: Motion/Second (Lopez/Santana)
To continue the meeting to a date not certain to analyze the project. (Motion Carried 5-0) Passed
V. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
No comments from the Planning Commission.

VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS
A General Plan Update workshop will be scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting.

VII. ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment of the Planning Commission of the October 19, 2021, Meeting at 11:13 p.m.

The next regular meeting of the Banning Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 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=83fp69g19YeX or by purchasing a DVD:
https://banningca.gov/forms.aspx?fid=148
1549
1 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
99 E Ramsey Street, Banning, CA
Wednesday, December 1, 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 (present via Zoom at 6:53 p.m.), Commissioner Santana.

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

No comments from the public.

Public comments closed by the Chair
III. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Brosious)
Motion Carried 4-0-1, Commissioner Lopez absent. Roll call vote.

To approve: Revised Minutes – November 3, 2021, Regular Meeting.

IV. PUBLIC HEARING: opened at 6:36 p.m.

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 GORGONIO AVENUE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL USE DISTRICT (APN: 540-164-006).

Jessica Herring, applicant was present and available for any questions from the Commission.

Public comments opened.
1550
2 No comments from the public.

Public comments closed by the Chair
ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Santana)
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. (Motion Carried 4-0-1), Commissioner Lopez absent. Roll call vote.

2. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164, A PROPOSED MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL/RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 47-ACRES PARCEL 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).

Project applicant Josh Zemon, managing principal of Creation Equity, brought a team of consultants who spoke about the project. The primary goal was to disseminate facts and answer questions the public may have.
- Project History, Auggie Gomez, McRae Gomez Companies
- Traffic Consultant, Charlene So, Urban Crossroads
- Air Quality & Noise Impacts - Haseeb Qureshi, Urban Crossroads - Market Commentary – Phil Lombardo, Cushman & Wakefield J. Zemon talked about the design changes that will allow to alleviate congestion. He said the warehouse will be built first and no tenant has been identified for it. The warehouse's groundbreaking is at least six to eight months out, and the building would likely be occupied no sooner than two years from now.

The development is projected to bring the city $4M in developer impact fees in the near future. Once the project is built out and leased, the city is projected to see $325K in recurring annual revenues and more than 700 full time jobs created.

The applicant is willing to work with the City of Beaumont and the City of Banning to upgrade the stop signal lights by adding an Opticom emergency response system on Sun Lakes Blvd and Highland Springs Avenue traffic lights for emergency vehicles. 1551
3 Public comments opened.

Thirty-three members of the public spoke against the project, the majority being residents of Sun Lakes, The Lakes and Four Seasons Communities. The top concerns are quality of life issues, such as increased traffic, noise, and pollution.

Public comments were closed by the Chair.

The Planning Commission's decision is final, pending an appeal filed with the City within the next 15 days for City Council consideration.

S. Young, Assistant City Attorney said that that city staff determined there were no facts to support a supplement or a redraft because the Banning Pointe project has been scaled down since the EIR was certified in 2020.

ACTION: Motion/Second (Krick/Brosious)
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 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.

With the following added condition of approval:

The applicant is to work with the City of Beaumont to install signal preemption devices installed on the exiting stop lights on the South Sun Lakes Blvd. between Second Street, Sun Lakes Blvd., and the Interchange.
(Motion Carried 3-2) with Commissioners Lopez and Santana voting against. Roll call vote.
1552
4 V. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
No Comments from the Community Development Director.

VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS
No Comments from the Planning Commission.

VII. ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment of the Planning Commission of the December 1, 2021, Meeting at 11:19 p.m.

The next regular meeting scheduled for January 5, 2022, of the Banning Planning Commission is adjourned to Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

Minutes prepared by:

Sandra B. Calderon
__________________
Sandra B. Calderon
Planning Commission Secretary
The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banninglive.viebit.com/player.php?hash=yrNRMNzLg7zJ or by purchasing a DVD:
https://banningca.gov/forms.aspx?fid=148
1553
RESOLUTION 2021-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANNING,

CALIFORNIA, MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162, AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 21-7008 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31864, TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 47 ACRES INTO THREE (3) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PARCELS FOR FINANCING

PURPOSES AND PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING OF 619,959 SQUARE FEET ON 47-ACRES, INCLUDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, AND SIX (6) RETAIURESTAURANT BUILDINGS TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET, ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 (APN: 419-140-057)
WHEREAS, Sun Lakes Highland, LLC has applied for a Design Review 21 -7008 and a Tentative Parcel Map 31864 for a new industrial and retail development proposing one ( 1) industrial building and six (6) retail/restaurant buildings; and for the subdivision of the site into three (3) parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Banning Municipal Code Title 16 and the Subdivision Map Act allows the subdivision of approximately 47 acres into three (3) commercial/industrial lots within the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area subject to the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021 and December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission held the noticed public hearing at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to, the project and at which the Planning Commission considered the Design Review 21-7008 & Tentative Parcel Map 31864;and
WHEREAS, on October 8th and November 19th of 2021, the City gave public notice as required under Government Code Section 66451.3 by advertising in the Record Gazette Newspaper, and mailing notices to all property owners within 300-feet on October 8, 2021, and 1,000 feet on November 19, 2021, of the project site of the holding of a public hearing for the Planning Commission's review and recommendation, at which time the project would be considered; and
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Banning does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:

SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The Planning Commission, considering the whole record before it, including but not limited to, the staff recommendation as provided in the Staff Report dated October 19, 2021, and documents incorporated therein by reference, and any other evidence [within 1554
the meaning of Public Resources Code§ 21080(e) and§ 21082.2] within the record or provided at the public hearing of this matter, hereby finds and determines as follows:

A. Public Record:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res.

Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff has considered the potential environmental impacts of the Project. Potential environment issues associated with the proposed Project were analyzed in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report for the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 (SCH 2020029074) which documents are on file in the Community Development Department. There have been no substantial changes in the Project nor in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous certified environmental document; nor is there new information that shows that the Project will have a new or changed significant environmental effect on the environment, or an effect more severe than originally thought. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, a subsequent environmental document is not required.

B. CEQA:
i. The approval of the Project is in compliance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), in that on October 19th and December 1st, 2021, at duly noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission considered the project's Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program (MMRP) and found that there have been no substantial changes in the Project nor in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous certified environmental document; nor is there new information that shows that the Project will have a new or changed significant environmental effect on the environment, or an effect more severe than originally thought. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, a subsequent environmental document is not required.
ii. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed the Project and staff's recommendation and based upon the whole record before it, and in the Planning Commission's independent review and judgment, finds that that the Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines because: (1) 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 that the Project does not involve new information of substantial importance which shows that the Project will have significant effects not discussed in the 1555
prior EIR; and (2) all potential environmental impacts associated with Project are adequately addressed by the prior EIR.
iii. The Community Development Director is authorized to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA.

C. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
a. As determined through the previously certified EIR, the Project is found to be consistent with the MSHCP. The project is located outside of any MSHCP criteria area and mitigation is provided through payment of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee.

SECTION 2. Required Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act Findings for Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 31864. An application for a Tentative Parcel Map requires that it meet specific findings in accordance with Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the Banning Municipal Code and Government Code Section 66473.5 and Section 66474.

The Planning Commission of the City of Banning does hereby make the following findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the project:

A. Finding: The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SLVSP) Amendment No. 5.

Findings of Fact:

The General Plan land use designation for the site is classified as Business Park and the SLVSP land use designation is Business and Warehouse Zoning District. The Project and the associated Tentative Parcel Map will be consistent with the General Plan and SLVSP in that the proposed Map will result in the development of this Specific Plan area as industrial warehouse building (619,959 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. Additionally, the land area allocated within the SLVSP Land Use Plan for the Business & Warehouse District, Retail & Service District, and Office & Professional District will be consistent with the proposed subdivision of parcels as a result of the Tentative Parcel Map. One of the primary policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is that projects adjacent to existing neighborhoods shall be carefully reviewed to assure that neighborhood character is protected. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map serves to achieve this objective in that the subdivision design is consistent with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Considering all these aspects, the proposed Map furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and is compatible with the land uses districts within the general vicinity of the Project.
1556
B. Finding: The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SLVSP) Amendment No. 5.

Findings of Fact:

The proposed subdivision has been designed to meet City standards which provide satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including emergency vehicle access and on-site improvements, such as streets, utilities, and drainage facilities have been designed and are conditioned to be constructed in conformance with City standards which is consistent with the City's General Plan.

Section 2.2.1.(Semi-Truck Access) of the SLVSP 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.

As such, the Project's access points along Sun Lakes Boulevard have been evaluated and any necessary driveway widening, adequate truck maneuvering, and signalized intersections have been provided per the City Engineer. Additionally, the Project is located near Interstate 10 freeway which allows for ideal access to industrial-type lands and helps minimize potential traffic impacts, which is consistent with General Plan Policy Nos. 8, 10, & 11 for Industrial uses.

C. Finding: The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

Findings of Fact:

The 47-acre site is relatively flat, rectangular in shape, and will create several vehicular access points off Sun Lakes Boulevard adequate for the proposed industrial/commercial uses. The proposed project is adjacent to existing commercial development and has availability of all services including, streets, water, sewer, and electricity. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for this type of development.

D. Finding: The site is physically suitable for the density of development.

Findings of Fact:

The site is located within the Business & Warehouse Zoning District within the Sun Lakes Village Specific Plan Area, which allows for warehouse, professional office, and retail/restaurant use. The project proposes development of an industrial warehouse building measuring 619,959 gross floor area, which includes 10,000 square feet of office and 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. As per the Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan, the subdivision as proposed is suitable for the density of development. 1557
E. Finding: The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Findings of Fact:

The site is currently vacant and does not contain any significant vegetation or habitat for wildlife. Per the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), there is no evidence that any endangered, threatened, or listed species of plant or animal, or its habitat, is located on the site. 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 Project incorporates conditions intended to comply with the recommendations of the MSHCP. In addition, this Project has been conditioned to comply with the environmental policies and regulations of the City of Banning and those of all local and regional governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the site.

F. Finding: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

Findings of Fact:

The design of the subdivision is in conformance with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, the construction of all units on the site has been conditioned to comply with all applicable City of Banning 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. The City's ordinances, codes, and standards have been created based on currently accepted standards and practices for the preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare.

G. Finding: The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Findings of Fact:

Other than easements for Banning Provided Utilities and 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.

SECTION 3. Required Municipal Code Findings and Recommendation of Approval for Design Review 21-7008. Section 17.56.050 of the City of Banning Zoning 1558
Ordinance requires that Design Review meets certain findings prior to the approval by the Planning Commission. The following findings are provided in support of the approval of the Design Review 21-7008:

A. Finding: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.

Findings of Fact:

The property is located within the Sun Lakes Village Specific Plan Area and has a "Business Park" General Plan Land Use designation. As stated in the City's General Plan, "Light industrial manufacturing and office/warehouse buildings are appropriate in this designation. Restaurants and retail uses ancillary to a primary use, and professional offices are City of Banning General Plan Community Development 111-8 also appropriate. Commercial development, such as large-scale retail (club stores, home improvement, etc.) and mixed-use project may also be permitted, subject to a conditional use permit." The Project as proposed intends to develop an industrial warehouse building measuring 619,959 gross floor area, which includes 10,000 square feet of office and 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. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the intended uses for this General Plan designation.

B. Finding: The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, including the development standards and guidelines for the district in which it is located.

Findings of Fact:

The site is located within the Business & Warehouse Zoning District within the Sun Lakes Village Specific Plan Area which allows for warehouse, professional office, and retail/restaurant use. As proposed, the Project meets all required development standards as outline in Section 3.1 (Development Standards) of the Sun Lakes Village Specific Plan (SLVSP). These include such requirements as setback, height, landscaping, parking, etc. Additionally, the Project meets those Design Guidelines outlined in Section 3.2 of the SLVSP with regard to such elements as architectural articulation, blended use of building materials, and fenestration treatment. Therefore, the Project meets the City's zoning code development standards and design guidelines. The 37- acre site is relatively flat, rectangular in shape, and will create several vehicular points off Sun Lakes Boulevard adequate for the proposed industrial/commercial uses. The proposed project is adjacent to existing commercial development and has availability of all services including, streets, water, sewer, and electricity. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for this type of development.
1559
C. Finding: 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.

Findings of Fact:

The site is located within the Business and Warehouse Zoning District within the Sun Lakes Village Specific Plan Area which allows for warehouse, professional office, and retail/restaurant use. The Project is bounded by Interstate 1 O freeway to the north, Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center to the west, Sun Lakes Country Club to the south, and Sun Lakes Assisted Living & Memory Care to the east. Given that Sun Lakes Boulevard is a Major Highway between Highland Springs Avenue to Highland Home Road, the capacity for truck and automobile traffic volumes for commercial and industrial purposes is adequate. Major Highways are intended to connect residential and retail uses without encroaching upon neighborhoods. Signalized intersections are proposed to be installed at Highland Springs/Sun Lakes Boulevard and at Sun Lakes Boulevard/Country Club Drive to ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular crossing along Sun Lakes Boulevard. The 37 -acre site is relatively flat, rectangular in shape, and will create several vehicular access points off Sun Lakes Boulevard adequate for the proposed industrial/commercial uses. The proposed project is adjacent to existing commercial development and has availability of all services including, streets, water, sewer, and electricity. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for this type of development.

D. Finding: The design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Findings of Fact:

The site is bounded by the Interstate 10, Sun Lakes Country Club, The Lakes Assisted Living, and Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center. The northern portion of the project site is a proposed industrial warehouse building measuring 619,959 gross floor area, which includes 10,000 square feet of office. Six (6) Retail buildings totaling 34,000 square feet to the south ing in size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet. Building 1 will include a coffee restaurant with a drive-thru and the remaining five (5) buildings will be for retail and/or restaurant uses. Since the adjacent uses involve similarly intense uses such as commercial/retail, the Project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action: Approval of Project with Conditions. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission of the City of Banning hereby approves Design Review 21-7008 & Tentative Parcel Map 31864 to permit the subdivision of approximately 47 acres into three (3) commercial/industrial lots and development of an industrial warehouse building measuring 619,959 square feet to 1560
include 10,000 square feet of office space, and six (6) retail/restaurant buildings totaling 34,000 square feet located within the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area as shown in the attached plans (Exhibit A) (Assessor's Parcel No. 419-140-057), and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit B.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of December, 2021 ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita Y ~ 7ant City Attorney
Richards Watson & Gershon
ATTEST:

Sandra a deron, Recording Secretary
City of Banning, California
airman
nning Commission
1561
CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2021-16, was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of December, 2021 , by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Brosious, Krick, Shaw
NOES: Lopez, Santana
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~lWdda CaLJM uw
Sandra Calderon, Recording Secretary
City of Banning, California
1562
City of Banning
Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval
PROJECT: Design Review 21-7008 & Tentative Parcel Map 21-4001 SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval (Planning Commission Resolution 2021-16) 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 Planning Commission Resolution 2021-16
* 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 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 1563
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.

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 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1564
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.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.
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.

11. 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.

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.AII 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 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1565
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) 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
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1566
c. Clearing Plans
A. (Include construction fencing plan)
d. Erosion Control & SWPPP, WQMP
A. (Note: a, b, c & d shall be reviewed
B. and approved concurrently)
e. Storm Drain Plans
f. Street Improvement Plans
g. Precise Grading Plans
h. Landscaping Plans
i. Water Improvement Plans
j. Sewer Improvement Plans
i.
i.
i.
1" = 50' horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal
1" = 4' Vertical
1" = 40' Horizontal
1" = 20 Horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal
1" = 4' Vertical
1" = 40' Horizontal
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 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 "As-Built" 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.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1567

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.AII 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.AII 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-of-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. R?-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. 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1568

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.

49. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.

SO.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.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1569
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 acGess 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.

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.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1570
WATER:
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.

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.

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. 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1571

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
7 4. 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 SOR 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.

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:
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1572
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:

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 Band 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
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 1573

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)
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
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 1574
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 Added Condition by Planning Commission
103. The applicant is to work with the City of Beaumont to endeavor to have signal preemption devices installed on the exiting stop lights on the South Sun Lakes Blvd. between Second Street, Sun Lakes Blvd., and the Interchange.
***END***
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 1575
"E i ! ft ll i 0 ~ ;; ~
~ l ''I@ ' f
■ ii 0..
1 ill Ii ;
O>
I L I
~i1~,a (~~} -~ : e C: l> 8 dlHHI "- ·2:

H ~
'I §d .•. .• ! ~
! C: u - ~Ji1 ••,., ·••'
£ !!
1576
i:i -0 ~
I
- -.+,-1-----+--
~
• I
t
_ ..

P g
L Hd
-
w
0 ~ z Cl.
w ~-
1577
~ ~ ;; I ! ,., 0.
l f -~ 0)
C i'l "" c "
3 ~n111u C 5 0
a) ~ i' o1 ~=
~ G21
t© i
--.!e- ~ ~:
' + L
'
L
' + L
t© L
' L
~ ~
-'El
I ~ -- -r-lt-- 1 2 0 1..;:; . ~--=-~
I
I
-- - - 1578
I l I@ . ~ii .-·. •• ii ij i••ija :·;\~~1 '11•.:t ~.~. i ~ •! •.11 •,,;, .... • i
i
z
3 ..J
C
•J
c
~ CJ)
C
c
C
0 a:i
~ I ~
~ ;; I'\ j ~ f -~ ll
" " • ! L. dUHU 6 8
M JH
~t
l© ____ i5 __ u::c-+--- ----+--- -~·---- 00
~
~
D,
~ _...
~
~ I c::i
1579
8 c i ! p~ -.::t: I ~ ~
l ,-• 0 - f .J < , I .- • • ~ ! •I •i I :1ii1d t:~-'-J •! z O> L .. ~ C a ! ·c " 0 =UUIU I o 1 ·-.:. ,... C t u ~ ,g ~ ~.I ll'il , Hd !
1580
iN'IU
~~t~ ENCL0SUR'" I CANOPY DETAIL 0
--r=
~~\OM(~ l ~ ,r ltdlOQ. ca.taOl-. ~i'.la, >-=l.d~~j: IMl.'- W1!1s::.:: .. ,.. .. -
ti 1111 U 11 11111 ,pi. . ttA1i
,.,.,,.,r I.II.Na ~- i~ tu.'Gr~-- r~Ws:..

PLAN VJ[\o'
~.~~.~T IRON FOJC E 0
,,-----,,\ ~
,,.~~::. '~} ~L ™'· \ ,,I ... '.\,, ___ .,.,.: IF.a'
~1l.:ll """"'lll.'B --~ ..,_•;,11,,1....,

TRASH ENCLOSURE
m:,q-~&.. ~----- ~£~ME
~ li:ll!i,'111,'/tllil' - 1.!EE!ICMDIWNJ. El81,1Qi!OIIIIDII. l.OO£IIOIIGUES91"'1 «NUIII KINE115'10L001 ~[g"'cA,E G) ra.-.~~ ..... ~~ H ENCLOSURE PLAN 0
II
.... "" ltll:ll'-'dM!l--... ·• ·"oo hff.m
lli:948-aa••77'0 "'" lll94flo.,_0851
enl:~
® . - .
■ Owner:

LG£ .,_.
■ Projccc
Banning Point
Clly Of Bcmlng, CA
■ Consultants:
■ TI!ill Of1M.J
Prlljllf.tNlnbar; m9ol
....... ... OM IL1~1
-
DAB-Al.5
1581
c I ! p ~ ~
■ I ,I@ i ~ is .......... . II ~-.. D " i l C) l! f,•ija :•~~r f .1 I ~ •! I C L . ~ !I •:it ~... l J ! p.. c 'IS " dHUH Ji•1 ••.,:, ··••" C 5 8 i £ l nd !
~ z ~ Ji 0 w w Ir n l 1 u w z er z w u "- ! ; '~ii @. •• Vl w (!) sl ... .:, ~•ii 11 .. ~·-, ;I w
~ I ...I
k I /i f I .... • I • I
~
·" !' I I I• 1 1 I
'
• • '
r ii,
·1 .i
.
. I I
I I
•
•
. I I I
I I I
•
•
I I
I I
ii ~
-~ ~ ! •
-- f
I
. I I
I I
11 _
1582
c I ! p~ c--: I 8
j
~ ~
-
· @ io
I < • ~ii .••·· •·••• u i " f -~ ,1~~iii :··~! I 1
~1
•! z
•l O> L .. ~ C ilimd ;. i , a § ·c " 0 dUHU ·•1 •,,: ... -· C 5 u ~ Hd l 0
a) ~
C
f
11 I
~I;! I j ~
m
~ i
-ill~ [!;
()
• j i
f
II
I
i•
I I .. . I I
~ I I I .,
•
! ' .
~
11 f! f-.-
i'
. -- I I
I I
I
C l
. •
• ' l
. I I
I I
~
..
-
• I I . I I • ..

II
•
;fi i---
I• i'
. I I
I I
If. f-.-
• 1s
•
. I
I
• - • . I I
I I
- •
•
• •
. I I I
I I I • . I
I
II I I . I I •
" • II
1, Ill' ,.
. I I
I I •
- I
I
• fi'" ,_ 11
1 . I I I : I I
l!i
J
. '
., •
. I I
I I • .. I I• I
• ' . I I
I I
1,
I!
f
I
f
I •
- f
.,
I
.
1583
II l ,.•@ c
~ ~ p~ - ., ~
~ . :JiaUI f:~ ;lh} f " i ti
. ~ •! •-~ C>
C:
i ••1 .. o,' , ••• .. ! <l: ·c
C:
15 ~ .§ i LI ~ .g u
i !Ii I 0
C
~ u " ~ "-) C, ,. .. .. qq; • / - - ' ' , .. . "' "' "' ., - ~ .,(·,M \ . = .1 . lJ . -j 't ,i - • J I
= - \~ h ~
=
10-
~ ----el a
"" I
"" p -
= • ,e--,,: ~ I
I! ,e 10 ,
• ~ :-€I t©-----~ I
" l ""' l -=
• 10---1 l ~ •
""' ,._..,
= =
()it ~ It
l~
G
:
• !~:
11 . ~ . .
e
• • 0
Ii - 1• • • =
• --0, ,. -& r . = ... • = Ill - - "" • ■ ,. • :w: :w:
• ■ '-Ii ' II - II
• I
,= [
= = I ,C - .. [ =
• ... , w • • 8 a: tr i:: = >fi'l-,., I ,C l--r.w, = "I.Ei ~ J I J IS • • g i5 8 '• • "' S! .. ii--- -·- "' 1 S!
• 10-; ~ • .. .. - ! ~
• I ' .. ~ i
• - I I - I
.. IA- = ~ I - ~ .. • • .. • • .. • • .. - I [ ~
.. • ·i • ... f
~ I ~
' -~ t®- mi. • .. J J .. • ■ ~ I 10- !11 ~II,- -, .. ~5 1i ~ .. 10- HE, • I . . I I
- ~ ... ;[ I -1 .. \ - J· ~- I • .
/
- ...,.. - a - . ., - "' ,....., . M .. C u ~e " .. ) ... C, "' .. .. • 1584
er
@-
~ -
cp
QYEJIALL EL!,°",~M @ - I ~ 1..-..,J '-' - I " 'UJ' • , .. J;r ... Mi RETAIL B3
5,400 S.F.
'3/
--@
®-·41= =t=~ ~ " l I " ! · '!
----------~ O~YER-~AL~LwfL~OO~R"'PL~AN-@c ~..,. ~ A -1/'lt-t-'4 I ....._, 1'UJ o w sr wJM. er
@-
RETAIL B5
6,400 S.F.
~
·--@
@-'4==--c- 1h • I 1 l::;l, ,t=-+= ~
cl)
OJERALL FLOOR~ @ -=-.t: 111, • ..
4 - ,,,. . ,. E r-i.......r-, (j} D ti' D" ....- =-
@--
®-
G)
©-·
Q)
@
@
QYERAU. R.OQ~~ @ """''" · ,•4 _,, •. ,. B r-i.......r-, (j} 0 11' 32' .... ~ er ~ - ~ .
•YERALL
<r
RETAIL B4
6,400 SJ'.
~
·--@
l
~ Q 0 11' l2' '5' .=.
~ $
4 OYERAU. ~ ~ ® - ,,,. · ,•4
- ,,~ F r-i.......r-, {i) 0 ... SZ' ...

KEYNOTES• FLOOR PLAN
§-~-- --- =:._-==-:.,-:=- u -._. .... ,.._
(D~~..B.~"'IC:~-:....-...._ • --..... ao ©~~==~~rwir.-- 0--- 0 ~Jr.-4,J~~~i:e~ 0
0 ---- --.IIUlll'OI 0~:""""-----:"':...~r: .......
0 ~'°':'===--..:o=..-r:. @--
@-- e- ®_,,,..... ...a - -__ r,;,,,,.Wl.11..""'"' ...__ @•- e--,,-- GENERAL NOTES- FLOOR ~N ... __ .,_...,_l'U __ ,. __ =--·~.:..:-: - -• - I. ________ _
0:. .... ._._ft.11111 _____ .f:' _ _ _ -d- ._
'- r~=-~- ~---------=----=.:~,=•--- ..... ,u.-
--om..u... --r f =:;..~,:.• Nlta:!Wmc.:H:-. ..... --.w
: • ~~~-.:::
___ _, ~--N..._ __ .... ..__
:: ••-,o---~ : =::r~=~~=::

L i-?.~:;:::=:• .. A::.:: IC. -~--llllf,MC-UlCA!mtlN,.._ II. . .t,U. __ .,,......_, ....____,-.,.a,:rw.y-~-- __ FLOOR SLAB AND POUR STRIPS REQ. ·---- ,_.,._NIIIIISM ---... .. .......... ____ ---- .,.. __ _ _ ,.,_ . ,,.=-.s,a .... __ J/~•ll"Lllll•J/lf<LC.DCllll.l .. -.-1#1,11,.-- t. l..- •£1,- .., .,_,. • .- .,.. r L-- ~---~l/t l_-----.C_2_•_ .. .. -
___ -.,
.... __ -~ .._ ... ..-- ____ ..ca.--_ L ,_.._ -•<Ull(-Jlll:ID"-- ____ _._ __ ____ , __ ..... _,._.. ____ ..._ ___ _ ...... . _out ____ _ ... ........ -.... - "· - C:J --::-::::.=:::-::,: ~ --~------ ___ N ______ _ __ _ ____ T ___ IJF ___ __ _
~-_,,_Olll ll: IUD _,, __ ,_
I.I...._ _ _ ~-----
1111 ,.. .,_ 1M31 bst1Nf1 .......... f100
~ .ca
"'" .. :9'9-.:3•1770
'-9'&-Klo0951
---
■ Owner.
um DIII.IOIJ-
■ Project:

Banning Point
OSydBari'lg,CA
■ Consultants:
■ AElAI. RllORPI.Nt
Pl-oj9Q ....... : ...
.,_,., .. 0.._: , l'•lMI
-
DAB-A2.2
1585
I p~ ,
-
~
• i ~
!
•
nd L ! ~
j .. ~.:o I
- e- ·---·-· ! i!-- ! I= np
" I !
,..a,
liil Iii
@- ---· i
J'.1
IX I LX ""-
m I .. ~ ®-·- ~ ---•-.....--
- ~ I
- c; re ~ -· ~ ""' ' un "" --~: .__,.
• ... ~ m - i l IIM .. i, $! ~ un "=-
i 11n
• . ~ 11 n
®-
•
IX I X -..:..
111n . ~ - "'
I llf
X X
i
·' • .,... -~ - • "-=- ~
✓.,,
©-
-~-
""'
ca
~ = -~
11 n
~ 11n • i ..::. 11n
ll nl !
-
~I ©- ---- ~
= 11n
I©- , 6)-
_'J
~
uni I
ID
- ·
~ fill I . ~ 11n
I ~ &,:..
11n
• II Ill~ '® llrl
~ -~ - ~ 11n
e-
~- ""r-,
c;:
@- llrl! ©-·-·
---- ~ 11n . llrl • ..::. 1111
11 Il l • n ~ =
~:&: ~ 11n
llrl
@- r-sr-· Ill .., 11r
®-·-· ---
-
"-='
©-
-~- 11n .
- ~ 11n I<;:,
I IIM • . = 11r ~
ll ~
,.,. . ..::. ""
1111 ,~
@- 11n ----·
@- -·-·-Jt=~, ll;J: rl
. .: .: & - L
11n
@-- · ·-
-
""'
~
- ~ -=-" , 11n l<
1111 • '®
11n ~ . 11n
Ir,
~ lln a.;,
jJn
©-
·---· 11 n
1111
11 ---=.,
@- 1111
111 1
11 1111
~
©-
= 11n
• lll -~
~ Ill
l ~ ..: ...._ ~
lln
ii ~ ..... II~
111 n a.:;!
®- ------ llnl
110 ~
'".::I '"' •
!In .
@-·--t,--
--
""' _!
~
!@-
@--
----
.
.
~= un .y:
~
~ ~!J ffifl±f-0 --- - -~ 7 I
I 1
IX I )( I ,. I
' • I

IX I 'X I
I
I
I
I
IX I x
@-
----1--
I
I
I
I ~ ~ I -
~
-iii I I " I
I I
I
-
-I
I t= ! I
I I
I = I
e I I - ,--- I
L----------- .)
~a
Ji,-,....,.. l 'X: I "KX7il
---=., I.Al JI(
llii:lllliiiiill
.~Iii
1586
I 8
:111u l ••1 e {:~ ~) - ii.Ii i ••. , ... , !!
®- - ·-·-
1 .... Ill
._g i . ...

M .-a,
®- ---·-·-· I XI - ' ~ IXI ~
I©-- IX I
= I - ~ ;r i,;;
El.:, ml
•
11n '\.9-
®- 11n ·-·-·
I!(;:., 11n
11n ~ - ~
~
- -0
11n
@- --·-·- IIM
!{,:) ,.

I IIM
IIM
® 1,.----·-· 11n ·-
""" 11n
I I(:) llM r
tJ
®- I,.---·- 11n .

IIM
I, ·- 11n ~ 11n "IV
"· 1111
®- '---'
11n
- 11n1 , !{;;J llftl
- ~ C
~ t=t f0 ® --·-·- 11n1
Uni
• n, n11
. IIM 'I::>
@- ~ . IIM
11n
"(!,
IIM
•
11n
,-
l
~ ,__ . -
: P0 11n
. ,.,. 11"
• ~ ""
'(e,
IIM
® 'I:, 11n
11n
I, - IIM ,r.::,
ti
• g
tJ
•t
IX I )<
1 '
I!(:
e- ----Haa--"1-~,..,
® -·-
.,;::, ..,I
& . -·-·-71-t---+t---H
@-· ·-· .,,,,.
e- -·-·-· 1x1 -
El!!i ~ I X ,-
I X
@ '---+'------!
c ~ ~ f .t • I g>
·c .. " 5 C cl
0 m !
k fl-1---1--J.-.I
co
e- -·-_ _....,__._.,_,
I ' ! j
!
J h.
r II ii
l l l l l
11111!1 I eee eeee e rn II
..
~
~
< I
~ J ~
1587
Ftl f
l ~
•OUJH~Ym @
NQRTK~~ G)
.4
SOUTlf ~ ....;¾F@ 3
EAST !_F(J'!lf'!I @
REJA 1W111G 1 ~ffll!! @
RII~YIW-l @
·"·
KEYNOTE§• ELEVA110NS
0--IIJ--~
0-- 0--- ,..,._. .. -•-•L0 ;,~..;,~~~ ~
@a;ae..:.e£~==·
0 ::"~"'=.!J::::.~- 0 =:=..-=-==·---..... 0 ::1€:-::~z.-:-- 0----- @-- l
®~ -1:..~.p!..:::-.;;..
--
--- -- GENERALNOTES-ELEVATIONS
;;;;.~~:~.:i..-:-_;:--
~~~~m"::' '·a:--:=...=-=:,.c:==r.:-
2~:~~~~~-:-
COLOR SC!@)UI.E - L~AllONS
0 D (D
CJQ)
0 0 --
0 - Q) WOALCMIPY
GLAZING ~END GJ ---
--mw-
.... ...,__
---~
CQl'ft
~
tl.WMIIDZEI
SIEl'fll iwiiikirii: UJD' NCI' flllllP ffllQD--:i! 111)5 Mt 'H[C EAIJ~J~ @
RETAL IWMNG 2 !:'YJ~ @
Ill ,.. ... 11131 .......... , ... ,100 -...... W:M«M7711 la:t41-&Dl51
... ~.ml!
@ .
.
■ Owner:

I.GE PPMII
■ Project.

Banning Point
CltyOl b,nlng.CA
■ Consultants:
■ 'NII. B.EVATDtS
~~ 2IIBM
Or-,by. Sl.111
C.. 11Mat'll
-
DAB-A3.3
1588
~
-~ f , ..
~
L
t i
I
f
I
i
Ci)
NORTH !zCYJ'!!l/J G)
r
IQUTN ELEV#~
_, • I' @3
IIORTH!l:rf~ (})
=]
SOUTII !lf'fJ'!'PJ @
Ci) f
KEYNOTES· l:_LEVATIO __ N_s ___ _
0-.,-~ ©---
0 ~=-~-.....:in-,.:.:--.=oL°"=
0 ~P-~~---Jlll,"I,
0::aE-":S~~=-lll
@ ~::-'715~~
0 =~-m.::=----··· © ~;:..;::i:;:,Z.~ - @a.-~--ll)MO
~I® --
fflI !!._EYJ!l1?!1 @
~ ~
___________ JU~liUI...l!J:.'¥.;i.f.l~
RETAIL IULDM s ~@
{ < LJ <~O SeH• <~
WEST !!!'fJW-:!j @
]
EMI!!!t1'J~ @
RETH. IIULDIIIC3 4 !;,£¥J!'PJ @
e e;::...:;;----=:=.,:-m._,~ .. ~
1 ·-11'1,;;i.----
---
GENERAL NOTES" ELEVATIONS
;~:~:.;..:..---==-- ~~~~~
'E'.,p4.J:'oll:ll::L'=:=!llllllli:l"
i~iii-;__:;;--
COLOR SCHEDULE • ELEVAllONS
0 PJ«rfAIIClm~ffllf
0 ---- 00 ..... - © P.111(1 ~
©
© ...,..
~ m.m
~
<WflAN011m1
CJQ) lillM.Cll()flf P....-i -=-~':_C~

GLAZING LEGEND
Gl---
Ill ...... 18ll1 :.-dllfl ..... ••f100
111"'9«:1• -.,, ·~ 1710
....... 0851
--- (t) .
.
.
■ Owner:

LG-B HMGN ; .a; ••
■ Projttr:

Banning Point
oty 01 Bonrr,g, CA
■ Consultants:
■ Tille. EIE'ATIOHS
-
DlawnDI'-:
,_ - -,..
1'1001
DAB-A3.4
1589
T f
I
Fit:
11 1 , , +n:i: ~
___________________ ]IW[l;EI.SJU~~!~ @
EAIT !£~J'9PJ @
T f
NORTH ~1'$1J G)
i[mlr1 du!Mo 111111iJ ~ 80UTH !Rb~ @
KEYNOTES· ELEVATIONS 00 --- --
0 :::.'='li.~.:'"""...::..-...1:.::...::..."'=
0e,m~~--
®a=:..:s~~=--,o
0 a=-=-~a:i.5.:-~
0::-:-i::..~=--- --.:. 0 ii.f:-:=iFZ-:a0 @-- --- - - - 1 @ ~;-.;;.~p:~-::;..
---------
GENERAL -- !!(1rES • ELE'!_ATIONS
i~~~~:.-:..ca:::--
~a;z:~J.£.~-==- '·=:r~--=-=::..o==:=1::='
i~~:;;~~-:

COLOR SCHEDULE· ELEVAllONS
OG) .. ,, -al!\lin..oc D© NINT ~
00 ------
_____________________________________________________________ R!!!ET.,,,A,n1L'-'a.,u,.LD1N..,.,.GLf~E:l:; LEY~A~T'l'~"r@ 00 © ..... ------ - - 1;r ~ 1·- © ~ si:~~WQ 0 Jl[T.l,i. lMCPI' Pl#t'fl:PA'«ISY5JDG=S!XD5Plfft!m.
~ GLAZING LE(,_END
Q......----
NORTH !!:.rfJWJ G)
~
IQUTH!!:,1~ @ EAII!.C¥J~ @
AETAL 8UUIING e !lf!JWJ @
II
""-"- 181131tadlal---,,••·"oo ~.ti
W:IMIICl """ •171'0
lra:kG-8153ooa5I
..... :~.cani
■ O,.ner:

WE K NOii ~•-·
■ Project:

Banning Point
City of laMlng, CA
■ Consultlllts:
■ 11'11 ELEVATIONS
Profea~: 2!1)1
01-,i,r, SlH
DIii 11111!1
DAB-A3.5
1590
i S.Ql'E l/ <° ftJ: lt --ita,rr/ ,.r DID'
i!
~
__ .,_
TRASH ENCLOSU~E/ CANOPY DETAIL 05 s:N.£.: lt.T.S.
fNSMJ"'JI
BrlkllaG.CO. ~~m'wc Clll fQ.IM. .ij• !tlaDlll L::-
rb,.'ffl'i''"''' ' mq;,." ~"!11'\ffl' '"'- u·wtrwm:: ffflm,on;. m 1· ~ ~ trmDr ;;~ ;:· rQtlb'•-- n..-,w.. ~ ~ I' r,.
:t~~~--- F.t'Tl· - ~ ,.,_ l:'~~
>UN VIN
!~~~.S,HT IRON FC:NCE 0
~
_,,,- \ ""'= : ' PIJlltlLIIII: r ltcff f <RlAIIC : Sllll.s:tl~ ONA \ ONLY ; ~IODUH),n,> \\-:_~.---·'? - _!!_:II'
~ '4'-lt'll"~ ~ to..DI OUI.
-'· llll;'Ul,'lll/;'l,til'J§ """' 2.1fI S)U)l~nrtA.Q rolllt£Pff.

J. (11l9011 Gl,la;fill. ll[ ,af fO IMl( 9Jli NG LDCIII
~~-G;'"'cATE 0
fl'(l:fa.llU:-, 1 I~~ I I
l t ! I j ~ -- 1'
i ! l l•o••-•---j L ______ •
r 11cac.:n: oa
CE~j#: ii~~ ..... TRASH U-ICLOSURE GATE ELEVATI ON 0 :!:.~::;'H ENCLOSURE PLAtl 0 Ill .... ... 1m,...,-. .• ,1m -.m .. ,, lll:kll•e8:M77D . .... Cl51
--
~ .
" O• ; • •iT
■ Owner:

WE HSIGIU , ••
■ Project
Banning Point
Ctty0f8csri'ig,CA
■ Consul12nts:
■
'"" DErAIS
--· .... _,, "" - 11'11W21
- ·• ..
(!,, ___ 7
WALL SECTIC!.,• ,J~® .... ,
DAB-A4.l
1591

II BANNING POINT

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA LGE I DESIGN BUILD
Job No. 20394.00 C O N C E P T U A L C O L O R E D E L E V A T I O N S - W A R E H O U S E B L D G 11 : 2202 1 1592
•

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW7006

EXTRA WHITE

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW7071

GRAY SCREEN

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW7074

SOFTWARE

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW7076

CYBERSPACE

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW6886

HEARTTHROB
~~ -u BLUE REFLECTIVE CLEAR ANODIZED

GLAZING MULLIONS

BANNING POINT

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
Sherwin Wllllams
Acrylic Latex Syetem11
High Gloes/Hlgh perfonnance
In color: SW 7076 CYBERSPACE
@ Metal CANOPY

LGE I DESIGN BUILD
Job No. 20394.00 CON C E PT UAL COLOR E D E LEV AT ION S AN D MATE RI AL BO ARD 11 12.2021 1593
/
I
~
\
I;
\'
/
/
/ \
// \
,.--- -----
\
\
)
l'UWILI ~ ~~~ e:_T111'!Q_•'_ frx,o,nl tfDGat)
--+-
2~~.lJil __ lf-:..J.. _ __.!,_ --J- .....j......
2551.~3 PAO I .
-~---+- _J -----j
~,-,,_,_.rc±, 11 [-..,--·:1'( ' I' fETAl. 2 I t
.I I [ 1~~•
l
Ev -• - < • .,,.,,,
fETAl
l
'SOP. P/L
I I I : \I jl/c+tl -&
·- 1\J I 'I' ~.,,_ ---~-J. ..J_..-1 .1-\...-'--°b ... l. ,...j • ------ --~..::::..:..--=-.'....r..:±: t::..I:...1-.~- . '11CINI,.':; UAP
Wilffl'9Bll RAANGICALCIM!AII ,PlnJECT BllrilG•T -""' ,.,. ic srreMEA L SUISOEtf';E FACTOR:

M SJ«N(AGEF1'.CT0ft
H. ~ ~ VACTIJA;
o OVEREXCAVAT0N"
A CALCLl.A1EDCVT
a. F0011«iN«>UTUfYSPOI.S
a,. ~CI-WIIISERS
c. TOTAL.CUT: l.l ... l
D CALCl.l.ATEDFU.

E LO«PAVN)FU
F SI.IIIOENCE (lJIK127•
G 8N'IN(AC£ (Ml1a>JCH. SfTESTRf'PNG l CNfREJ(CA\'ATIJtt:stWU«AGf J. 10"fA\.HJ.:.~,of.0.H~
~ '°'"
~SF
1/&i'!f. --d-
~ CY
~CY
~rr, 1:Z-cy ~CY
1,l&g~ ~ C'I'
H .M:1 CY
~CY
__,_
L[GAI. OESCRtPnON: (E XISTINOi
,.. __,,_.,,..._, ~ :,,•~ .,,_, ~r;r, ~ 1-Y
--~,.,...,....
~ .j~=-.. ~o,""~.~ ---~--
!:ZZ~~-;:;=-.~~ ... ~~
~~"!.~~;:,::::a:;.-:::::1.·
~~,.:,::~;-:.::,_~..''
? FOAi ~ fPPQP08EPl PARCO..S 1 ()I'" PAAC£1. MAP No 38164 R/1 l"'- l r lS # ::,r i
-I ~ -'-- [" L l "':m .. .J. I
\SUN~~
·~ ------ ----=-~_ .. rm _..... -- ;J!Jl&;.11P -~ i ~ -r-\ - " '""' 0.1-1"-J._I::~- · "L I~ --·- ---- 001-.. :....p,.r,;;,-ES---et::VE>.- ------~---U!~-~ -~ 1- - - - - - BOICHM,Olt: coumn<cue CR. UIW""'uv,1111: @ ,_ a, --==--'°'' QTY OF """ BANNINC, CAUFOl!N;;_-- - --;;.-.--E T ' ~~ -=--==c=~-c...--=-= :.'='. ~=--c... --- - ft ,.. !!ID 100 ~ t ... 511
==~_:r::-_:.-:_r -_ litruo~~ ot• •- -- -- CONCEP'NALQAAC)INQPLAN 1 •----11n-... •- --- - 0 j.A-~..1!!':! NIN '""~~- ===~-'°'•-- ·- -•~-••--• ~----· --- -~ "".:,_-;:::;" ::.:;:::::'..,:::':'.~..::.\\".::... - _,, - NECOFSUNLAKESBLVDAND ,,
811 ~"':".-..:.":~•:r .... -::-ix:c-, _ _,_ ....... __ ..,.....,..,__.,,_...,. -- SUN LAKES DRIVE BANNINGCA ._.
___.. ,._ G,(l[IU'l ..,_ .. -t-1-6 .. , .. .., 1-~="""'_. --------........ -, . 1594
w
T i -n ----- r <j- -.- - - ,-J t J - ~- I ,i- 1""'1 - 1-? ---:-;rr=:--I -,·-+ :==::-i: :r=:;--_ ·=pr~~--=-~~ _:::-;:7 ~'- r -""7 - 'l ~ -1T'. rI':1 ,..p!:":r:=:' :::-_-_ - - ::-_-_-:. :::- ::-_ I I " I '' . . I: 'I • I . I ! I • I I . ll I . •. l . ' • I ' I : 1 : . 1 I ·, 1 :, " . ... . •. I I f, •. . • , ,r, .. I : .. ,. d ,!Id tl l JJ:·,11 1 -..- 1 Ji • . • ·~ - ,c ~ 1111
I\ I,
L ~
1 1-....:.;:-,- _Jj.,...,......_r, ' . .. , --~~ - ' __:_ ' ·i_ '
\
\ ' _\' - \ 1Jr-- i 1
'\'' :J i
-- ',, . ' ·r~ r- / / \ ,, - -
~
_... ,,,,, \ \ ' • I 1 ----
\' .J....' I ,
,,,,,, :, , , . -- I 7
.,,.., \ •: ;:\.
. ---T
2551 .61 FF
2551 .0"3 lrAD
-.L
; ------.--
1 I 1... __
I
~
_/
llll!ll-J I - \ .. ,,; I li
r
_j
1 _7;
~ \
~; ~ -7 ·--- I J - ' I ·- 1
l ·I
! -i ·t:_t-n..1.,1.a.-
l ~l
.,,,, .,,..,, .. \
,,,.,. / / \
\
'i
--- --...
,1:, j
I
I I I __ j I
l -~ I -
' : i I ' I . LI~ I I I
7 ~ ' ·~ I . ·: ~ ,~ , I
- ~rH . I . I - ~~. ~
- 1 '
, .. .mar ...... ~~-- ~=-= ~
l
:;1: ~ -- ~ [ !} ....IL - _)( _ ::_jj - 'Jr:' -
,l ,_
, ,
'I I •• ~
:·'-: • .~.. _J
~~-==-~:--~~-~ hi., -- I , ._
- '.....'._'~ _I_ - __l... • ...l.. __ , ~~j___ ___ ~. -• l .'._. - · . - --- ,~·-- •-' I ; ~I
i
' r --:i ' ' , I I 1,1 I ·1 '± r l
----r------ ---=----- t;. ------ i;,- ------ . - ....
'1-o_. :, . r .. ".:_i -r~. ~ ~--(/ -.
1 c·~::-t t ~~~ ·1· :· ~ ' ~~ n~c~ ''-/ ..;, , _ l~,...l~ n I ,i( ii,j l =-•=..- 1 ~ t-u - ,} !~ ,-c,_~~~J 1 1 _ .1 I • ,~ r-,- ....,.,-•,, _,.r t ~-, r.-·r;· , 1 .... .... \ 11\1 \q \ - 1 , • I "'""•• • t I j T: ' 1 "·• I • .I J 1 • , •·• .. T. t=~--- _J_ ___ - ---- --~ '------ . .w.. l . -,--. -- -.:.L ---- ... L.!_~j_~~ ,.,_ ~.b..L-ld~.,,__ .. J:~~~1--...b..,.,o....,_...iJi ... "-_ ' ~ ~ SUN LAKES BL VD.

IL --- - ~; - =---•:.~-- .. --~ r- - .. ~ - r- - ,,.. _ ·--~::---·---- - - --- - - -=--=-=- ~ °'1_1-11'4_.
"'
1 - =-~·e-r __ .,. ____ ,,_..., ,.. ____ ,.,_.__,
..a\·,.,-•W:-- 111 c.a..,.....,. ::...-::.--..=-:•,.•!,,'::.,.u:".:... -ffl'Mi!W A•-••--••----IO· II ,.. •--•• 1e••111_.. ~..:-~~~--V-r-Q. I .. ----~ .... ,.-.. , ... .... 1, ,_ .. ""''--
.. ,~':.:.:-,
' " ,. i I
~
C.,f [II &A.~,~•·N•., l.:A, rOf,,f\i'A ___
·--
I',. ·--l'I ~ t -T
UTL1TY l"LAN i 2

NEC OF SUN LAKES BLVD AND

SUN LAKES DRIVE, BANNING CA
1595
,-----
1 , 1
~~\ \\\ -r-r- -t-- . / t\, ·,, 1 .... ,.,,.,,,, .,~\\
/ 1=-t- r . . . t--
1 r- +- t--+ + -+-+-+- L k1-
I
/
/
--- -,-.
~ j
'\
'
,)
:1
l l,
'
I jl I' I r- I l ~
t· ' j --1- __j__
I
-l- I ,
,- -,-1 I 11=1_ + ·- - ,~-T
.L _l__ - ! I --1-+- -i- -I 7- -f
- --{ -r--- .
)' fi. \11·n·. - _J m1: r_~ ·--_---•
\ ~\v
1 '. - --~-'F ~ ~c~-,C-.!scc!,U.,J._i_~ctss-w-~" '' ,, ' '' ,_, __ ~bhlJ~16Jla. L.J.Ld.J.l.JuJJ .'exi~"~-- L.I I - --- - ---~7--_----- _ _:_ ··suN LAKE S BLVD.- ,. ___ _ L-c ~~.. ~ · - ---- -t.- l ~· ------L - ,---- B(~ CJJM".-T""""C
,, ====~~Hhf-------4-+-l~mn!k':.:.~~~
~,...._..,. ~ = =-~:;;~• IUiiU~~~
Sf;-• ;z:;.~:st•::=.~~:.. __ t-t-+----------l--1--1 I ,.. __ ...,_,:.._ 11'alllll• a'\A,-:i~ .. l 1111 -..I ,. ,..,. - - - ~ [ 'r I 1 1 G • I
"-•it,,.
,_
rorJWnnailll'www.....,.
,.,,,_11,....,..,...,..__ .........

OfY rF~HC. IOUIIUC lll'.lRK5W'ARl'IIIDIT
-- .!!:!.
•
.. -
SCAl.E;
L
1• .. ,o•
-
':"'~-
I C1 TY Of" BANN INC, CAUFORNIA I s H ( E
OONCEP'1UAL IITOOM 3
,O_L _~ "
Cl'IAIN !"LAN FOR
NEC OF SUN LAKES BLVD AND ~ •""'

SUN LAKES DRIVE, BANNING CA
1596
2550
2540
2530
2550
2540
2530
2550
2540
2530
~~~
- - --------~=~:::------------, ,-- - ---'=:: ti ·1
2550
-~
/ '\.._
____ - -- / ::J-----~-~~~r -
--=- =- - ~ a~ -
-~- ~ ~l . 2540
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 !HOO 15+00
- - -------=::;:----------,
=-~-~ ~ ~ ~ ---- -.~I ~ -'-C-\=-=tt:~-'""j
--~ • ~ LINE B
10+00 11+00 12+00
IJNE D
10+00 11+00 12+00
13+00
13+00
14+00
2550
2540
2530
'IXl'lll>,CT!)lf lt_,,u,;<,_,..,..,g,, lltl1A~ ~ or;~ !lll/lrj..i(IO, ....... =~=~o:a:'.:-a.. 14+00 16+00
2540
2530
2520
1 ~ -::- :::: 7-1 17+00
r
~ :;.: :,:::1 10+00
~
~
iifilC~, I I I I I I COMHlffMAME
lB+OO
~
11+00
LINE H
'lf-'-:r;: ~l¾f~~
_ .1 .. 1 11 lliin~~~ I __ ..,,.,.,_,.,.ti-. -. -- -. -. • r ~-·· .... ~ ----w~---.. =• 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
LINE C
12+00 13+00 1-4+00 15+00
2540
2530
2520
LINE l
......... ~~--
23+00
2550
2540
2530
2530
~ 1t __,,La;;.l_ illf)l..o1
a.. m-.--.- ""ldo:14•~ ~ ~ --.. rr • ~p-,ill)llfr,pt'I' ,....., 24+00
~ - _,.uc.,,_ ,.._I =-=~~
2540
2530
2520
,--==,.__
•.nn:r T
R........,,._ Dole __ l•ApprO'flllllly.~
O TY Cl" BA.t,NINC, CALIFORNIA
~AL 8TOAI,
DAAllll"AOFII..EB
'"'
4 ~8" ........................ ....
~ =- ~ IOWll ll()l'.t,111\0f ••ra,: ..;::,.-;.. ..

NEC OF SUN LAKES BLVD AND

SUN LAKES DRIVE, BANNING CA
1597
- 2661}
L1 - J_ - - - - _)11--=r ,--. __ ~
7" --
26W
-2-6AO
2530 UNE E
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
2660
-2Gu0 +-
2540-
1 2530
UNE Cl
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 10+00 11+00
l
~ '=: !~: :1
~
1-ll" QJ
1-;;;: : :- : ;, I l 2+00
10+00 11+00
13+00 14+00
2860 -
_-,~--t- 1'- r-- - . --~-------+--- 2GG0
12+00
...........
, .... -- _,.._ -~-
13+00 14+00
I- .L"' - -L
10+00 11,+00
r 2540 -
~ 2530
'IXllll.cs:ll ■ ...... U:O.•.IIOl'fllllll
~-· ~-.::-=:'l .. -:,-.a ... ~ ·
2560
---, __L'l_
LAT El
12+00
OONCE!PT\JAL 8T0FM
ORAN l"flOFILES ........... Jr?
...,. LAICEIB EILVD.
26GO
2540
25{10
i "" --11!,
--- ,-- I .. _., --__ ~ .,- ---.... Hl~
::"'" ===: - ,~ ~
f
1598
\ \
\ \ \ \
.Q
~ 0
(.)
0)
C
·c
C
0 co
1599

CITY OF BANNING
~ <
"' (!)
~
g
C)
BANVON,$'~
~ <
8 ::,
~
~ <
>-
a:
~
w@,
' 6'11,2021
rn
' ~
:i,
iii
<: FLAMINGO ST
200 .00 000
Feet
,W'\v1~~~ I~

CITY OF BEAUMONT
1STST

LELAND ST
~ < l:Y'-'lllfA STt!>
~ ~
~ &: - "' L<gSLIE sra -- __,
0 u
"" ~ ;;; ■ ■ ■ • Banning City Boundary ~ (/)
z U)
m ~ ~ -< c'i . C-9.#.( __, ..., rrl t) C)
At?JirE CR~PL,4_.,, C,9,:-,.,;<!'",t- C) __, C) ''!l "' ~' 5 :c .,,/ PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510

AERIAL BASE MAP
ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan
1600
• ~ ~
CITY OF BANNING PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
~ -< CORRAl: e°IR
t I
' I
l I , ,
I ~ W.E 0 100 ~ 400 800 000 : ~-- ~ Fool
s
6' 18.Xl2I w w1~~ 1=-- ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan
---~-~---------------::- --~ ~-:.:.-:.-- -- --~i '" - - •r, < ;:,. - - '.J'1&,,-£' ~ ~ -~'::="Y- ~ ~ --SJ.: - ---- /l
1--------- -----; 1::::----
-- - _. _ ----- - - - - - - : 'WsHuA PALW:.R WAY _ __ ' ___ _ __ ~ROJ~(;T _______ .,. ~lf:i 1 - ... ... - - -~J: ilr --._ Qi I .., ... ..., , o ._ I tl:
... ; : ~ - - ~ - - i.:5. - -
~
: :6 I
I I l; ,' I I I I , I
! ✓ ✓ ./ ~ , ,
,
I,
• I I --:--;/ ---i:::-- -- ... ------ ------- LOCATION I •
..
■
~ .. ~
:s ■
<.? -■
UN!QN PACIFIC RAILROAD
;_ ---... ----- -;--- ... --...
it,. ' "' :f; ~.,. . .Ji .. -----.. a:, i>:
c::i • ·. •. 1 - - g ~ :c: .. l c..-.--- :s: it
' ~
'l'o
0 CITY OF BEAUMONT
~ - '-/i~ ~ ~~ :
~.. i ~ ' l? ■ ~ <•("' 0 c;
~ ~
/ / ,.-o-P,.
legend
,-, California Geological Survey
L__J Liquefaction Hazard Zone
-
FEMASFHA· 1%(100-Year)
Annual Chance Flood Hazard
FEMASFHA- 0.2% (500-Year)
Annual Chance Flood Hazard
- USGS Blue Line Streams
I I I Banning City Boundary

5.: 11! ~: i 'i! ,'"' . ■ .--• c-, , i; , <:, 1 ,,c •Hli:J.S •AVE , , , sl9""'Ew-c/R
II 1 ___. "" ":----.. '!""-----.... ""~ ,. I ' ./y - ~ T - - - ROU:ING ~ ---'il t __ ~--- --- -- -'------- ----- ---------- .._J'L ~:3 ' ' \
~ -- 1 I - - --------- - ....... ~"f:"".;).V- , C:, If! '• - -, . ---_ --- , I - - • - •. ,:J, ~ • - - - - -W L - ' I
■:::: --- - WINGF0 0 T-A-:,'E, '. : ., - - ·OAKM0NT·DR- - /;, - , <§>', ~ ' I \ \I \ .. ------ ... ~ ',', ' , ~ 8,,,/ ■ ■
■
■
No California Department of Conservation Earthquake
Faull Zones within 1 mile of the project location.

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

I l ti I ~~ ~ -- ,, ' ,' ,
1 ' ,,. '/ ' ~" ,e '' ' -~- \ oRews·""(A ~ -eROOK·S/DE~ ,!;~'(" \ . ~ - ' v-'k, sAl;"'AN 1 ',n I ~ i.. ~ --- ~ -- ' I -C~ - ., ' ~ ' ~ V , ... ... ~ .. , t,1ER1°11 \~ ~ _ - - - - 1' 'it,1'1' d1 ' , <l'~. ' I • ..-~ , -,,. I J ,;,f;; ' J ':, ' ~&-, I \ oC•c, -Z, , I ~fi:,T°" ' <'.;) \ t,1~l~lr.'-' "'re, %-'i.-; 'i,-Sl \,-cef · , ',c, ',, , : , , b ,.,_ ·<!'<')_ il\ ~ _.,..o ,. <::.,..., ' , ',', ~ ~ - "??, ,;p(:) ~ F, ~ · "9:, _ ;.:..~ ' ' ' .:,o\ "/';. ' .. .. -Q ) -~ ~ ' ' ' -v. ... ,,_ '" ' - ( ' "'¾• ,,.._ ' ' ' (:). ~ ~ '' , --z,._ r • V , ' , ~ - ~ ' ~, \ ~ ~ ij\:>- ~ ' ' '
' , c...K...'f'.,. ' ' \ '.:Q: ~... ~ , ' , ' ,' ,
,SJ \ \ _ \ e ' J l\. ' ' 'J'--- -- - E~'f'E'RA1
&O·0T- \ "'- ... ,- ... _. ' ... __ .i. ___ ,.. ,,/ ~ ' ,~, ; ' ,,---- \ ,J ~ ~ I ' J ~ ,, ' (j) It ..r ~ ~ ~ , , , I :c ~ -------:,r ,~,,, '1-, ~:i.,k ,' f:/R,
-,:. tJ ,st,.~,s,' ~ !f ~:qi,, 1/1 _,'<, ~ - 0 1 '.I> g; <;)
I?
\ f ' C(j I C,
,'LINl(s ?l° , Av,:.
',
No Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
Criteria Cells within 1.7 miles of the project
location. ---.o~~<.<-
,<:S>«'
' ?.e
f l :.:::l - l ~ ,' , ~ ,... ~ !;,
/: : I f .,.. .. #<' .. ... \ '-':.::::_:_::: :. :::.:.:._,~ ....

I ·-- -- pA~ ,' ' ;,;,:
• Source Eorl,:M.,a,, Ge~v•. d'<l!Jlila• Goograph,cs . .cJ!!ES/Aubus OS. USO~ usiU,7-'.™ftlillb-~G!'i'St!t<!<l~l!;GIS-User ct rt'/ 1601

CITY OF BANNING
· • · 0
200 400 600 800
Feet s
W W%~ ,~

CITY OF BEAUMONT
■ I I I Banning City Boundary
, ;.. rl:d, ,... ... ,,, ,,.,,
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510

PROJECT VICINITY
ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan
. -- r-· - "";"SEY S T
■ ■ I 5 11~];TI~$ =11 1 111•1•! ~ ---, ■ . ' · • · ! I I I l I/ :E1~r 1
1 - • • • • .\ ~ ~ ·
1 •" ■ - -- - I I I I - • ~ "'"-"';!!""R=.._- ·~----1.RROJECJj' t ---'... I , ; 110 m 110 -~ .J3LocATioN •
•
• 110
' - --fiiitONPACJFIC_RAII.RQAD
: L.----,-l:i ■ i I • J • L -
:1~-11
: :-r ,---- "■ I
110
110
1:F \_,~ l. ____. 1 ·1
0 ' ~---c_
5 : --- lL----.... =::::~;,~ §. - - 1~ ~ "'• ~ ---- -
~~----1~
: .\FfJ \
■ ~ I<. ~
-~ ·,;_,~ \ -~ -~ . - '·'-::-.. ' ~ "~ -.~ • D • ~ !\-:;;- .. ~ V - ~· • ~-§ : ,1-:. fJ~ "
=f, • "~ ~ '-. ",:-{,-=--:] :
• ~ i:":
;~:;; . It
~ --. ,
.
"
x ·~ i/
/'---
~ • L , 1, 1, 1. \ II
~~
, 7:- ,,
I ____
~ , Nl[ '
" ' '~/~/
_ n-,..__ L._J i .. - --~"""'t,..J f I / "f • ' I
/10
110
1602

CITY OF BANNING
·•·
0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700
FHI
s
&i ll2021 w wr~I=-"'
--- --
-- -= == =:~~~~~:~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~::
::: =::: :::::::::;;;;::;;::;:: --2ND-S'r- - - - - ; ,
-- , -

CITY OF BEAUMONT
LEGEND
General Plan/Zoning
Business Park
__ General Commercial
CJ Low Density Residential (0-5 du/ac)
D Medium Density Residential (0-10 du/ac)
- High Density Residential (11-18 du/ac)
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510

GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
ADDRESS/APN: NEC of Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./419-140-057 ZONE: Sun Lakes North Specific Plan
,_ - - -'%1, ~ ~1 ' , - - - - -· t.~,
- High Density Residential-20/Affordable Housing Opportunity (20-24 du/ac) \- - - ~~"S « <Sh C-. Mobile Home Parks - Open Space - Parks
D Public Facilities - Railroad/Interstate
D:J Specific Plan - Sun Lakes North
Banning City Boundary
111
'""-~~ ;i; 4-,i.. ~
1603
The following information comprises the minutes for a special meeting of the City Council, a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and Banning Utility Authority and a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Successor Agency Board.

MINUTES 2/17/2022

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Mary Hamlin
Council Member David Happe
Council Member Alberto Sanchez
Mayor Pro Tem Colleen Wallace
Mayor Kyle Pingree
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Schulze, City Manager
Kevin Ennis, City Attorney
Marie Calderon, City Clerk
Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk
Adam Rush, Community Development Director
Art Vela, Director of Public Works*
Suzanne Cook, Finance Director*
Tom Miller, Electric Utility Director*
Ralph Wright, Parks and Recreation Director*
Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer* James Wurtz, Economic Development Manager
Ginetta Giovinco, City Attorney’s Office*
Jeff Horn, Police Captain
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
Paul Lindley, Fire Marshal*
Sandra Calderon, Development Project Coordinator
Sandra Castaneda, Office Specialist
*Participated via teleconference.

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pingree called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

1.1 Roll Call

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT ABSENT
Hamlin, Mary 
Happe, David* 
Pingree, Kyle 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
1604
Special Meeting Minutes 2/17/2022 Page 2 of 6

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance - Mayor Pro Tem Wallace led the pledge of allegiance.

2. PUBLIC HEARINGS

2.1.Banning Point Project – Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map to Divide 47 Acres into 3 Parcels of Land and Design Review Approval of a Proposed Industrial Warehouse Building of 619,959 Square Feet, including 10,000 Square Feet of Office Space and Six Retail/Commercial Buildings Totaling 34,000 Square Feet within the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 (APN 419-140- 057)
Mayor Pingree announced the procedural requirements that would be followed during the public hearing.

Mayor Pro Tem Wallace announced she had met with Bob Walter from Sun Lakes on February 10th and the project developers around November 10th to ask questions about the project.

Council Member Hamlin announced she had met with Josh Zemon on October 18th via Zoom, November 10th and January 19th.

Council Member Happe announced he had met with the applicant (representatives from both Creation Equity and Urban Crossroads) on January 7th and January 19th.

Council Member Sanchez announced he had not met with the applicant or appellants, but has received a lot of emails and public comment.

Mayor Pingree announced he met with the applicant on November 10th and around January 13th.

All members of the City Council said that the information learned in these meetings was already included in the staff report. They brought no predetermined bias and had not made up their mind regarding the determinations they would be considering tonight.

Adam Rush, Community Development Director, presented the staff report.

Mayor Pingree announced a recess at 6:28 p.m. The meeting resumed at 6:40 p.m.

Applicant Presentation
Josh Zemon of Creation Equity presented on behalf of the project applicant.

Appellant Presentation
Gabriel Ross of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP presented on behalf of the appellant, Pass Area Action Group.
1605
Special Meeting Minutes 2/17/2022 Page 3 of 6
Public Testimony
• Alphonso Sanchez spoke in support of the project.
• Juan Serrato spoke in support of the project.
• Alex Zamora spoke in support of the project.
• Richard Licerio spoke in support of the project.
• Jose Radillo spoke in support of the project.
• Bill Quisenberry spoke in support of the project.
• Ralph Velador spoke in support of the project.
• Efrain Lopez spoke in support of the project.
• Virginia Cervantes (Regina?) spoke in opposition to the project. • John Ramey spoke in opposition to the project.
• Randy Robbins spoke in opposition to the project.
• Ken Johnson spoke in opposition to the project.
• Jim Thurow spoke in opposition to the project.
• Bonnie Mitchell spoke in opposition to the project.
• Bill Hobbs spoke in opposition to the project.
• Lynette Smilac spoke in opposition to the project.
• Ron Pitts did not speak to the project.
• Diane Berley spoke in opposition to the project.
• Paul Perkins spoke in opposition to the project.
• William McNees-Smith spoke in opposition to the project. • Howard Katz spoke in opposition to the project.
• Brown Bruce spoke in opposition to the project.
• Marian Putnam spoke in opposition to the project.
• Charles (Michael) Volz spoke in opposition to the project. • Beverly Rashidd spoke in support of the project.
• Vickie Sellers spoke in support of the project.
• Bob Messier spoke in opposition to the project.

Mayor Pingree announced a recess at 8:03 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:18 p.m.
• Anita Chatigny spoke in opposition to the project.
• Susan Knepper-Moore spoke in opposition to the project. • Juanita Diaz spoke in support of the project.

Speakers Jim Johnson and Tom Leamy had left the meeting before they were called to speak.
• Sheri Flynn spoke in opposition to the project.
• Dave Getka spoke in opposition to the project.
• Ann Oliver spoke in opposition to the project.
• Gregg Schafer spoke in opposition to the project.
• Bob Walter spoke in opposition to the project.
1606
Special Meeting Minutes 2/17/2022 Page 4 of 6
• Hebe Tabachnik spoke in opposition to the project.
• Daniel Rappelhofer spoke in opposition to the project. • Virginia DeBry spoke in opposition to the project.
• Lilly Aguilera spoke in opposition to the project.
• Liliana Hollmann spoke in opposition to the project.
• Ken Fazekas spoke in opposition to the project.
• Richard Meltard spoke in opposition to the project.
• Jose Garcia spoke in support to the project.
• Jayson Baiz spoke in support to the project.
• Thomas Ruiz spoke in support to the project.
• Joanne Graham spoke in opposition to the project.
• Corinne Marshall said she was neutral on the project, but she thought it was a lightning rod for other issues.
• Kathleen Aranda spoke in opposition to the project.
• Kathleen Dale spoke in opposition to the project.
• Karen Amirson spoke in opposition to the project.
• Laura Leindecker said she was neutral on the project but that the city needed development.
• Ron Roy spoke in opposition to the project.

Deputy City Clerk Patton announced that the city had received seven items of correspondence since the agenda was published. Comments received included:
• Letter from Urban Crossroads (Applicant’s CEQA consultant) – Received 2/15/2022
• Letter from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP (Representing Appellant) – Received 2/16/2022
• Allen Matkins LLP Letter in Support – Received 2/16/2022 • Kathleen Dale Letter in Opposition – Received 2/17/2022 • Ron Roy Letter of Opposition – Received 2/17/2022
• Prejext CEQA Consultant Response to Comments – Received 2/17/2022 Additional written comments following Public Comment included:
• Ron Pitts Public Comment in Opposition – Submitted in Meeting 2/17/2022 • Paul Perkins Public Comment in Opposition – Submitted in Meeting 2/17/2022
Appellant Rebuttal
Gabriel Ross provided a response to comments made in public testimony on behalf of the appellant.

Applicant Rebuttal
Josh Zemon and project consultants responded on behalf of the applicant.

City Council asked questions of the applicant and staff regarding potential conditions of approval.
1607
Special Meeting Minutes 2/17/2022 Page 5 of 6
Mayor Pingree announced a recess at 10:39 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:00 p.m.

Mayor Pingree closed the public hearing at 11:23 p.m.

Motion to approve the Resolution 2022-14 as amended with three added conditions of approval:
• Divide Condition 11 into two parts. Existing Condition 11 is retitled 11b, and an additional section be added to be titled 11a, which will read “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.”
• Update Condition 103, to read, “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.”
• Additional requirement that the applicant 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.

Motion by Council Member Sanchez
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Hamlin, Mary 
Happe, David 
Pingree, Kyle 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 4-1.

3. ADJOURNMENT
The Special City Council meeting adjourned at 11:27 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by:
____________________________
Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk
1608
Special Meeting Minutes 2/17/2022 Page 6 of 6
This entire meeting may be viewed here:
https://banninglive.viebit.com/index.php?folder=City+Council+Meetings All documents related to this meeting are available here:
http://banning.ca.us/Archive.aspx?ADID=2594
Public Record Materials

1. Public Comment submitted by Pass Area Action Group – Received 1/24/2022 http://banning.ca.us/718/%5bhttps%3A/banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10099 /Att-13-Public-Comment-from-PAAG

2. Project CEQA Consultant Response to Comments – Received 2/15/2022 https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10135/Applicant-Rebuttal-Letter_02- 15-2022

3. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Letter of Support – Received 2/16/2022
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10153/Allen-Matkins-et-al_Letter-ofSupport_02-16-2022

4. Appellant Supplement Letter – Received 2/16/2022
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10155/Appellant-SupplementalLetter_02-16-2022

5. Project CEQA Consultant Response to Comments – Received 2/17/2022 https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10158/Urban-CrossroadsResponse_02-17-2022 1609
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1610
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1611
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1612
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1613
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1614
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1615
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1616
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
1617
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1618
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1619
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1620
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1621
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1622
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1623
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1624
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1625
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1626
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1627
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1628
37 CITY COUNCIL - PUBLIC COMMENT CARD
FEBRUARY 17, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING
Name (First and Last)
Residential Address
Representing (if applicable) -------------------
Speaking in: D Support � Opposition D Neutral
To allow an opportunity for all to speak, a 2:00 minute time limit will apply for each speaker. Each speaker will only be provided with one opportunity to speak. Ceding your time to other speakers is not permitted. Please address your comments to the City Council ONLY. Speaker cards must be handed into the City Clerk to be called for comment.
38 CITY COUNCIL - PUBLIC COMMENT CARD
FEBRUARY 17, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING
Name (First and Last)
Residential Address .r; 2 s (,l \;\_) I pj L\eJ.
r
\u_�ci D<
/.:'.)o\JV'\ y, I vc SJ_ C, '}- 9 z__ 2 L cRepresenti ng (if applicable) _ ___,J/Y\.----+-�) ---1...........,S,�·c_____ l , �E-___________ _
Speaking in: D Support � Opposition D Neutral
To allow an opportunity for all to speak, a 2:00 minute time limit will apply for each speaker. Each speaker will only be provided with one opportunity to speak. Ceding your time to other speakers is not permitted. Please address your comments to the City Council ONLY. Speaker cards must be handed into the City Clerk to be called for comment.

Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1629
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1630
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1631

CITY COUNCIL - PUBLIC COMMENT CARD
FEBRUARY 17, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING
Name (First and Last)
Residential Address
Representing (if applicable) ----',,-{ _____ -==----.-, · ---->_L{ ) -"-°'-.:...,...._f -1---'A .___ __________ _ Speaking in: esi Support D Opposition D Neutral
To allow an opportunity for all to speak, a 2:00 minute time limit will apply for each speaker. Each speaker will only be provided with one opportunity to speak. Ceding your time to other speakers is not permitted. Please address your comments to the City Council ONLY. Speaker cards must be handed into the City Clerk to be called for comment.
· CITY COUNCIL - PUBLIC COMMENT CARD
FEBRUARY 17, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING
Name (First and Last)
Residential Address
Representing (if applicable) --�\
�--�.____\..) ___ A-_________ _
Speaking in: R Support D Opposition D Neutral
To allow an opportunity f�I to speak, a 2:00 minute time limit will apply for each speaker. Each speaker will only be provided with one opportunity to speak. Ceding your time to other speakers is not permitted. Please address your comments to the City Council ONLY. Speaker cards must be handed into the City Clerk to be called for comment.

Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1632
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
1633
1 From: Kathleen Dale <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 10:13 AM
To: Caroline Patton
Subject: City Council Special Meeting 2/17/22 - Comments Attachments: 021722_CComments.pdf
Good morning - please share the attached comments with each Council member and appropriate City staff.

Please ensure that these comments are included in the project record.

Thank you,
Kathleen Dale
Resident and Property Owner, District 4
Exhibit B - Written Public Comment
1634
Comments for Banning City Council Regarding
Banning Point Warehouse (Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and Design Review 21-7008) 2/17/22 Special Council Meeting
Submitted by Kathleen Dale

Page 1 of 6 ends

Banning City CouncilJune 11, 2024

Banning City Council
June 11, 2024