Agenda packet, regular meeting, third session — Banning City Council, July 9, 2024 (part 11 of 11)

2430
decision has been interpreted by City Staff and the City Council as a recommendation to the City Council for approval of that Map; and ,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Section 17 .68.100, three applications seeking to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on the Project were received during the appeal period following the Planning Commission's action; and WHEREAS, an appeal application was received from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance and was subsequently rejected as being incomplete because it did not state the grounds or reasons for its appeal, did not request a specific action, and incorrectly described the project; and
WHEREAS, an appeal application was received from Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), who subsequently withdrew its appeal on January 18, 2022, and announced its support for the Project; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger submitted an appeal on behalf of Appellant, Pass Area Action Group, and a three-page letter on behalf of Appellant, which was supplemented by a 428-page letter submitted via email on January 24, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and the appeal hearing on Design Review 21-7008 was scheduled for January 31, 2022, and in compliance with applicable law, the City provided public notice of the public hearing by advertising in the Record Gazette Newspaper on January 21, 2022, and by mailing notices to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site; and WHEREAS, the City subsequently received requests from both Pass Area Action Group and the Applicant to continue the appeal hearing to allow for additional time to review the materials related to the Project; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the requests from both Appellant and Applicant for a continuance of the public hearing, at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting held on January 25, 2022, the City Council voted to cancel the appeal hearing previously noticed January 31, 2022, and to reschedule the public hearing to February 17, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City provided public notice of the rescheduled public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and the appeal hearing on Design Revie 21-7008 by advertising in the Record Gazette Newspaper on February 4, 2022, and by again mailing (on February 3, 2022) notices to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject site; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2022, the City Council of the City of Banning conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal, at which time all interested persons, including Appellant and Applicant, were given an opportunity to speak and to present both oral and written evidence in support of and in opposition to the Appeal; and Resolution 2022-14

Page 2 of 33 ends

2431
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including supporting reports by City Staff, written materials timely received by the City, and information provided during public meetings.

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

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

SECTION 2: Environmental Findings.

A. The Project has been reviewed in connection with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. § 15000, et seq.). Based upon all of the applications, plans, submittals, and evidence presented to the Planning Commission on October 19, 2021 and December 1, 2021, the additional submittals from the Appellant and the Applicant, and the public hearing held on February 17, 2022 (including written and oral staff reports and supporting documentation, together with public testimony), and in the exercise of its independent judgment based upon the whole of the record and the evidence presented to it, this Pouncil hereby specifically finds and concludes, as provided in the succeeding subsections of this Section 2, as follows with respect to environmental review related to the Project.

8. The EIR prepared for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP analyzed the potential development of 877,298 square feet of industrial and warehouse uses, 52,065 square feet of medical office uses, and 37,189 square feet of retail uses. The EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts from this type of development in the areas of: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.

The EIR concluded that Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP had the potential to result in a net increase of building square footage and that certain air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable even after the imposition of mitigation and regulatory compliance. The City Council determined that the benefits of Amendment No. 5 outweighed the Amendment's environmental impacts, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on December 8, 2020. The EIR was certified on December 8, 2020, and was never challenged. It is now final, beyond challenge, and conclusive in all respects.

Resolution 2022-14

Page 3 of 33 ends

2432
C. Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP was adopted on December 8, 2020, by way of City Council Resolution No. 2020-141 . Its text was added into the City's Zoning Code portion of the Municipal Code by way of Ordinance No. 1571, which was introduced on December 8, 2020, adopted on January 12, 2021, and became effective on February 11, 2021. It was never challenged and is now final, beyond challenge, and in effect for all purposes.

D. The Project proposes a smaller development than that analyzed in the EIR.

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

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

F. The mitigation measures imposed as part of the prior EIR remain valid and applicable to the Project and are imposed as Condition of Approval No. 2.

The same benefits described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP remain applicable to the Project.

G. The prior EIR, which was a "Program EIR," has been reviewed to determine if the Project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the EIR. Based on this review and analysis, an addendum/consistency checklist, entitled "Banning Point Addendum/ Consistency Checklist to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Environmental Impact Report" (updated version dated February 10, 2022) ("Addendum") has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that the lead agency "shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c) further provides that an "addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR" and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) provides that a "brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included" in the addendum, the agency's findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record.

H. The Addendum evaluated the Project's potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the prior EIR to determine Resolution 2022-14

Page 4 of 33 ends

2433
whether any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred.

I. The City Council has considered whether additional environmental review is required for the Project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the now-final EIR and in the Addendum. All environmental impacts of Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP (including those impacts related to the development of industrial and warehouse uses and retail uses, such as those proposed by the Project) were analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated as set forth in the EIR (SCH# 2020029074) that was certified on December 8, 2020; this conclusion is supported by the detailed Addendum and its supporting technical reports and data. Therefore, any potential environmental impacts resulting from the types of land development proposed by the Project already have been analyzed and disclosed in the certified EIR that is now final in all respects and is beyond challenge.

Furthermore, a subsequent EIR is not required as discussed below.

J. Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the corresponding CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provide that no subsequent El R shall be prepared for a project unless, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, "major revisions" of the EIR are needed to reflect (i) substantial changes to the project involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (ii) substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (iii) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, showing that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, or significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, or mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. At this point in the process, "in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired, and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process." (Bowman v. City of Petaluma (2008) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073-1074.) As a result, any issues with the earlier EIR that were raised or could have been raised are barred from further consideration. ( Comm. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 50.)
Resolution 2022-14

Page 5 of 33 ends

2434
K. No information has been presented to the City demonstrating that any of the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166, or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163, are present.
(1) No information has been presented to the City to demonstrate that any substantial changes have occurred with respect to the Project involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Rather, the Project proposes the same type of land uses analyzed in the EIR and approved as part of Amendment No. 5 to the SL VNSP, but it is smaller in scope. The Project therefore serves to implement the vision for the area described in Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP, and is consistent the land use envisioned in the SLVNSP and its EIR. Furthermore, the Addendum comprehensively analyzed the Project in
comparison to the EIR in each environmental impact area and concluded that there are no new or substantially greater impacts than those previously disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated (to the extent feasible) in the EIR. The City Council finds that the Addendum, including its supporting technical reports, to constitute substantial evidence in support of this conclusion. (2) No information has been presented to the City to demonstrate that any substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken involving new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Project remains consistent with the project described in the prior EIR for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP and is smaller in scope than the development anticipated in that document and approved in Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP. · There have been no
changes to the SL VNSP area that would alter the ability of the Project to remain consistent with the SL VNSP and the
environmental impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
(3) No information has been presented to the City to demonstrate that there is any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete showing that the Project will have any significant or more severe effects than those discussed in the prior EIR, or that additional mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially reduce any significant effects on the environment disclosed in the prior EIR. No information, let alone substantial evidence, has been presented to suggest that the current Project has
environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated as set forth in the EIR. No information Resolution 2022-14

Page 6 of 33 ends

2435
regarding any purported greater environmental impacts, or the need for additional mitigation or alternatives, has been presented.

L. The Appellant's contention in its January 24, 2022, letter that preparation of a program-level EIR for Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP was not proper is a time-barred attack on that EIR. The EIR was never challenged and is lawful, valid, and conclusive for all purposes. Furthermore, the SLVNSP is a Specific Plan and therefore is a legislative enactment and environmental review at the program, or plan, level was appropriate.

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

N. The Appellant's contention in its January 24, 2022, letter that the EIR's analysis in the areas of transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise is insufficient to apply to the Project is unfounded.

The City Council finds that several of Appellant's contentions, including those set forth in the technical memoranda attached to their letter, are unfounded; rely on flawed assumptions (including but not limited to those related to horsepower, emission factors, and trip generation rates) leading to incorrect conclusions; are speculative (such as unsupported assumptions about the use of emergency diesel generators); or amount at most to a disagreement among experts, including over issues such as trip generation and trip lengths that were settled in the EIR and are now beyond challenge.

A disagreement among experts is not a sufficient reason to set aside an EIR and a lead agency such as the City may choose to accept the determinations and conclusions in the EIR if they are supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15151.) The City Council further finds that other of Appellant's contentions, such as that no vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis or noise impacts analysis have occurred, are factually incorrect and therefore lack foundation. The City Council also finds that other contentions, including those regarding the efficacy of mitigation measures imposed as part of Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP and its EIR, are time-barred and an impermissible collateral attack on the prior EIR. The Resolution 2022-14

Page 7 of 33 ends

2436
City Council expressly finds that substantial evidence supports the conclusions in the certified EIR, and that no new information has been presented to invalidate these conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Findings. Subsection (B) of Section

16.14.050 of the Banning Municipal Code provides that any action taken by the City Council with respect to the Tentative Parcel Map shall be supported by the findings required by Sections 66427.1, 66473.5, 66474, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the California Government Code and Section 21100 of the California Public Resources Code.

Resolution 2022-14

Page 8 of 33 ends

2437
A. Applicable Findings. The City Council finds that Sections 66427.1 does not apply because this Project does not involve the conversion of residential real property into a condominium project, a community apartment project, or a stock cooperative project. The City Council also finds that Section 66474.1 does not apply because the City Council's action in this matter relates to a Tentative Parcel Map and not a Final Parcel Map. The City Council finds that the other sections noted in the introductory paragraph of this Section do apply to this Tentative Parcel Map. The following subsections are intended to provide the required findings in accordance with Government Code Sections 66473.5, 66474, 66474.1, 66474.6 and Public Resources Code Section 21100.

B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the City's General Plan and with the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(1) The General Plan land use designations for the site are General Commercial and Business Park with a Specific Plan Overlay. The Specific Plan designations for the site are Business & Warehouse District and Retail and Service District. The Community Development Element of the General Plan provides that Specific Plan land use designations become the General .Plan overlay land use designations in the Specific Plan area.
(2) The Tentative Parcel Map will divide the existing 47.11-acre property into three parcels consistent with the land uses proposed to be developed on the site and consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations, as more fully explained in the succeeding subsections below. The subsections provided in this Subsection (B) provide the findings required by Government Code Section 66473.5 and 66474 (a). (3) The proposed Project consists of the development of an industrial warehouse building of 619,959 square feet of gross floor area, which includes 10,000 square feet of office and a separate parcel containing six (6) retail buildings totaling 34,000 square feet to the south varying in size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet.
(4) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains goals, policies and programs for the development of industrial, commer9ial and residential uses. With respect to the industrial uses, the General Plan specifies the general goal that "A balanced mix of non-polluting industrial land uses which provide local jobs for the City's residents." The project will provide a non-polluting industrial use and provide jobs for City residents. Specifically, the industrial portion of the project is not Resolution 2022-14

Page 9 of 33 ends

2438
an industrial factory and the uses within the buildings and the warehouse operation are subject to several mitigation measures that require the use of electrical hookups at loading docks (AQ3), truck idling limitations (AQ-4), the use of electric or natural gas service equipment to reduce fuel consumption and emissions (AQ-5) and a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. In addition, other mitigation measures are imposed on the Project during the grading and construction' of the site, including the use of low voe paint (AQ-1) and limitations on grading activities to ensure emissions do not exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds. With these mitigation measures the project will not exceed local significance thresholds for emissions and ensure that the Project satisfies the non-polluting goal for industrial uses as provided in the General Plan.
(5) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains several policies applicable to industrial development projects including: Policy 6 that provides that the land use map shall include sufficient industrial lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands; Policy 8 that provides that industrial lands shall be located on major roadways with good access to Interstate 10, to assure that potential traffic impacts associated with tractor-trailers are minimized; and Policy 10 that provides that the Zoning Ordinance shall include principles, design standards and guidelines which encourage development of high quality industrial projects." The Project is consistent with Policy 6 because the size of the portion of the site designated for business and warehouse uses is relatively large (30.22 acres) and is appropriately located immediately adjacent to the 1-1 O freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the north of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse use is located on the portion of the site that will be screened and buffered from residential uses to the south and east by the retail and service buildings to be located in the Retail and Services District that exists between the residential uses in Sun Lakes to the south of Sun Lakes Boulevard and the industrial building and by the Office and Professional District uses in the future that will exist between the warehouse uses and the residential and assisted living uses to the east of the Project site. The Project is consistent with Policy 8 because it will be immediately adjacent to Interstate 10 on the north, and the lot configuration and access points into and out of the site are designed to provide for the minimum amount of travel distance on Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and then onto Interstate 10 and eventually from Sun Lakes Boulevard to the Sunset Avenue and onto Interstate 10 when the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is completed. Finally, the Resolution 2022-14

Page 10 of 33 ends

2439
Project, as more fully explained in connection the Project's consistency with the Specific Plan includes a variety of design elements, setbacks, landscaping features that will provide a high quality industrial project.
(6) The Economic Development Element of the General Plan provides the goal for a balanced, broadly based economy that provides a full range of economic and employment opportunities, while maintaining high standards of development and
environmental protection. The Project will increase the availability of job opportunities for not only warehouse employees but also retail and service based business opportunities. The Applicant has asserted that the Project would create as many as 722 local jobs in the City of Banning. The proposed development and buildings will improve the City's property tax base, boost sales tax, provide jobs and revenue for the City's economy. The Applicant has asserted that the Project would generate
approximately $4,119,780 to the City in Development Impact Fees and as much as $325,000 in annual tax revenues to the City. The Project is also consistent with the following applicable Economic Development Element Policies: Policy 2 for the City to take a proactive role in the recruitment of new businesses that will generate and broaden employment opportunities, increase discretionary incomes and contribute to City General Fund Revenues; Policy 3 to encourage infill development that will increase the efficiencies of new utilities, infrastructure and public services; and Policy 9 which require development to be
responsible for its fair share of on-site and off-site improvements.

The Project will provide physical space for a large business or businesses to conduct warehouse uses in the City and spaces for up to six new retail and service uses to serve the immediate community and the City. These new businesses will provide a wide range of different job opportunities from warehouse jobs to office, retail and services jobs and thereby create the diverse job opportunities in the City that will provide opportunities for residents to find new jobs to increase their discretionary incomes.

Overall, through property tax, economic activity and job creation, the Project is anticipated to contribute to the City's General Fund revenues in and amount of approximately $325,000 per year.

The Project is an infill project using a long-standing vacant site for land uses on lots configured and planned to be appropriately sited between other existing uses and already served by existing streets, utilities and infrastructure. Finally, the project includes design features to ensure all on-site amenities consistent with the City's development standards are paid for by the applicant and that fair share contributions in the form of payment of the City's Resolution 2022-14

Page 11 of 33 ends

2440
applicable development impact fees are collected from the development.
(7) The Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 specifies Guiding Objectives for the development in the Specific Plan Area. Those Objectives are as follows: (1) Allow for a range of land uses that reflects current market conditions given the trend away from brick-and-mortar retail; (2) Respond to an increase in e-commerce, especially driven by the coronavirus pandemic; (3) Promote high quality development to safeguard the existing asset of Sun Lakes Country Club and other development in the vicinity; (4) Locate and design truck courts and semi-truck circulation to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and development; and (5) Expand access to restaurants, shopping, and services for the nearby Sun Lakes Country Club Community.

Resolution 2022-14

Page 12 of 33 ends

(8) Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is consistent with the following goals, policies, and/or programs of the Noise Element of the City's General Plan:
(a) Policy 1 states that the City shall protect noise sensitive land uses, including residential neighborhoods, from potentially significant sources of community noise. The certified
Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR") prepared for the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 ("SL VNSP") states that the maximum base ambient noise
level in Municipal Code Section 8.44.050 applicable to the Project is 75 dB(A) while existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the site range from 60.4 to 66.2 dB(A). The PEIR 2441
determined that construction noise from the Project site could be significant for the closest noise sensitive uses, which are the single-family homes located east of the Office &
Professional District of the SL VNSP planning area and the senior apartments/assisted living/memory care residential facility located east of the planning area. The PEIR
recommended Mitigation Measure NOl-1 to reduce this
impact to less than significant levels. To minimize noise impacts of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, the applicant has been conditioned to implement Mitigation
Measure NOl-1. PEIR Table 4.10-5 demonstrates that the
proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 would not have
significant operational traffic-related noise impacts on surrounding land uses.
(b) Program 1.B. states that the City shall maintain and enforce its Noise Control Ordinances that establish community-wide noise standards and identify measures designed to resolve noise complaints. The applicant has been conditioned to comply with the City's noise ordinances.
(9) The design and improvement of the subdivision proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is consistent with the Noise Element of the City's General Plan.
(a) Program 1.A. states that the City shall require building setbacks, the installation of wall and window insulation, soundwalls, earthen berms, and/or other mitigation measures in areas exceeding the City's noise limit standards for private development projects as they occur. As indicated in Table 13 (Operational Noise Level Compliance) of the Urban
Crossroads Noise Study prepared for PEI R
Addendum/Consistency Analysis, the proposed Tentative
Parcel Map No. 38164 will not exceed the City's noise limit standards for private development projects.

T a bl e 13 0 ,pera ti ona I N o i se L eve I C omp Ii ance Receiver Noise Levels (dBA 4q)2 Noise Standarc:I (dBA L,q) Ex9eeds Stan<:lard?4.

Location1 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nlghttime3 Daytime Nighttime R1 47.5 46.5 60 68.3 No No
R2 38.4 37.4 60 60.4 No No
R3 44.1 42.9 60 57.0 I No No
R4 45.8 44.5 60 64.5 No No
R5 45.9 44.7 60 63.1 No No
Source: Table 7-4. Urban Crossroads, February 2022 Daytime"= 7:00 a.m. • 10:00 p.m.: "N1ghtt1me" = 10:00 p.m. • 7:00 a.m.

Resolution 2022-14

Page 13 of 33 ends

(b) Policy 4 states that the City shall assure low levels of traffic within neighborhoods by assigning truck routes to major roadways only. The proposed Project will construct two (2) 2442
new access driveways on Sun Lakes Boulevard, which will be constructed to meet City standards and will have direct access to/from Interstate 10 via Highland Springs Avenue, a major roadway. The future extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard to the east may also provide for future access to/from Interstate 10 via Sunset Avenue, another major roadway. Exhibit 4 from the Urban Crossroads Traffic Assessment for the project, below, indicates truck trip distribution based on current truck route conditions:

EXH181T 4: PROJECT (INDUSTRIAL TRUCK) TRIP 01STRl8UTION ' ,40
\
Site
. ,
l
C. The design and improvement of the subdivision proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. ( 1) The Tentative Parcel Map covers an area of approximately 4 7 .11 acres and proposes to divide that area into three parcels to be consistent with the proposed land uses to be allowed on each of those parcels. Based on the findings contained in the
subsections below, the design and improvement of the
subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. The findings in the following subsections are intended to provide the analysis for approval of the Tentative Parcel Map under Government Code Section 66474 (b).
(2) The largest proposed parcel is 30.22 acres and is in the northwestern portion of the Map and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the lnterstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is proposed for a warehouse building of approximately 619,959 square feet along with associated truck parking, loading, landscaping and Resolution 2022-14

Page 14 of 33 ends

2443
other uses. The design of the subdivision to locate this large parcel closest to the Southern Pacific Railroad line and to Interstate 10 and then have this parcel improved with a warehouse and associated uses is consistent with the General Plan Policies 7 of the City's Industrial Land Use Goal which provides that there shall be sufficient lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands. Creating a parcel of 30.22 acres sufficient to accommodate the proposed warehouse
building while at the same time placing that parcel closest to commercial uses to the west, a railroad line and Interstate 10 to the north, a future office building to the east and a new grouping of commercial retail and service buildings to the south, allows for the warehousing proposed uses farthest away from residential uses to the south and complies with this Policy of carefully considering compatibility with adjacent land uses. In addition, designing this subdivision to accommodate a warehouse building is consistent with Policy 8 which provides that industrial lands shall be located on major roadways with good access to Interstate 10, to assure that potential traffic impacts associated with tractortrailers are minimized. The design provides for access into and out of the site from Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and onto Interstate 10.
(3) The second largest parcel is approximately 10.06 acres and is located on the eastern portion of the side and adjacent to an assisted living facility and residential units designed on smaller lots that are part of the Sun Lakes Country Club active adult/golf course community. On this lot, offices and professional uses are intended to be located but no development is currently proposed.

Resolution 2022-14

Page 15 of 33 ends

2444
(5) The Tentative Parcel Map is designed to meet City standards which provide satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including emergency vehicle access. Specifically, Section

2.2.1.(Semi-Truck Access) of the Specific Plan identifies Sun Lakes Village Drive as an access point for semi-trucks to the Business & Warehouse District. Currently, the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center utilizes Sun Lakes Village Drive for truck deliveries in both eastbound and westbound directions. Project's access points along Sun Lakes Boulevard have been evaluated and necessary driveway widening, adequate truck maneuvering, and signalized intersections have been provided as conditions of approval (See Street Improvement/Right of Way Conditions of approval, including Condition 27.) Additionally, the Project is located near Interstate 1 0 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 for the Industrial Goal of the Community Development Element.

D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164.
(1) The Tentative Parcel Map covers an area of approximately 47.11 acres and proposes to divide that area into three parcels to be consistent with the proposed land uses to be allowed on each of those parcels. Based on the findings contained in the
subsections below, the site contained within the boundaries of the Tentative Parcel Map is physically suitable for the type of development proposed pursuant to Tentative Parcel Map 38164.

The findings in the following subsections are intended to provide the findings required by Government Code Section 66474 (c). (2) The largest proposed parcel is 30.22 acres arid is in the northwestern portion of the Map and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the lnterstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is
approximately 1,316,349 square feet in size, exceeds the minimum parcel size of 10,000 square feet, has a lot depth of 876 feet that exceeds the minimum required depth of 100 feet, has a lot width of 1,270 feet which exceeds the minimum lot width of 70 feet, and is large enough .to accommodate the proposed
development of a 619,959 square-foot warehouse building with associated truck access and parking areas, loading docks, employee parking and landscape areas. The proposed floor area ratio will be 47% of the site and less than the 55% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will be set back 10 feet from the north and west property lines of the site, consistent with required development standards, and allow for building setbacks Resolution 2022-14

Page 16 of 33 ends

2445
to far exceed the required setbacks from the rear (185 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (70 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (185 feet when 20 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 402 parking spaces when 360-362 parking spaces are required by the Specific Plan and Banning Municipal Code Chapter 17.28.
(3) The second largest parcel is approximately 10.06 acres and is located on the eastern portion of the side and adjacent to an assisted living facility and residential units designed on smaller lots that are part of the Sun Lakes Country Club active adult/golf course community. On this lot, offices and professional uses are intended to be located but no development is currently proposed.

This parcel is sufficient in size in terms of depth and width to accommodate a variety of building configurations that could be proposed on the site and meet all required development
standards as set forth in Table 2 of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(4) The third and smallest parcel is approximately 6.83 acres and is located on the southern edge of the Map and adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard. On this lot, retail stores, restaurants and service uses are proposed. This parcel is approximately 297,492 square feet in size, exceeds the minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet, has a lot depth of 200 feet that exceeds the minimum required depth of 100 feet, has a lot width of 1,300 feet which exceeds the minimum lot width of 60 feet, and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of six commercial
buildings ranging size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet for a total of 34,000 square feet, along with associated utility, parking roadway, and landscaping improvements. The proposed floor area ratio will be approximately 11 % of the site and less than the 60% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will satisfy the 20 foot and 10-foot landscape setbacks from Sun Lakes Boulevard and the west project boundary, respectively, and allow for building setbacks to exceed the required setbacks from the rear (30 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (80 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (100 feet when 10 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 289 parking spaces (16 for the drive-thru and 273 for the retail) when a total of 146 are required by the Specific Plan.
(5) All three of the parcels are relatively flat and are designed to take vehicular access from access points along Sun Lakes Boulevard that are adequate in location, design and configuration for truck traffic into and out of the warehouse parcel, the office parcel and the retail and service use parcel. All three parcels are adjacent to Resolution 2022-14

Page 17 of 33 ends

2446
Sun Lakes Boulevard to provide water, sewer and electricity to the site.

E. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164.
(1) As noted in the preceding section D above, the Tentative Parcel Map covers an area of approximately 4 7 .11 acres and proposes to divide that area into three parcels to be consistent with the proposed land uses to be allowed on each of those parcels.

Based on the findings contained in the subsections below, the site contained within the boundaries of the Tentative Parcel Map is physically suitable for the density of developm~nt proposed pursuant to Tentative Parcel Map 38164. The findings in the following subsections are intended to provide the findings required by Government Code Section 66474 (d).
(2) The largest proposed parcel is 30.22 acres and is in the northwestern portion of the Map and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the lnterstate-1 O Freeway. This parcel is approximately 1 ,316,349 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of a 619,959 squarefoot warehouse building with associated truck access and parking areas, loading docks, employee parking and landscape areas.

The proposed floor area ratio will be 4 7% of the site and less than the 55% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will include landscape setbacks 10 feet from the north and west property lines of the site, consistent with required development standards, and allow for building setbacks to far exceed the required setbacks from the rear (185 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (70 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (185 feet when 20 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 402 parking spaces when 360-362 parking spaces are required by the Specific Plan and Banning Municipal Code Chapter 17.28. By achieving or exceeding all development standards, the density of the proposed development is suitable for the proposed site.
(3) The second largest parcel is approximately 10.06 acres and is located on the eastern portion of the side and adjacent to an assisted living facility and residential units designed on smaller lots that are part of the Sun Lakes Country Club active adult/golf course community. On this lot, offices and professional uses are intended to be located but no development is currently proposed.

This parcel is sufficient in size in terms of depth and width to accommodate a variety of building configurations that could be Resolution 2022-14

Page 18 of 33 ends

2447
developed up to the 60% floor area of the site allowed on the parcel and large enough so that it could meet all required development standards as set forth in Table 2 of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(4) The third and smallest parcel is approximately 6.83 acres and is located on the southern edge of the Map and adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard. On this parcel, retail stores, restaurants and service uses are proposed. This parcel is approximately 297,492 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of six commercial buildings ranging size from 1,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet for a total of 34,000 square feet, along with associated utility, parking roadway, and landscaping improvements. The proposed floor area ratio will be approximately 11 % of the site and less than the 60% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will satisfy the 20 foot and 10-foot landscape setbacks from Sun Lakes Boulevard and the west project boundary, respectively, and allow for building setbacks to exceed the required setbacks from the rear (30 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (80 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (100 feet when 10 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 289 parking spaces (16 for the drive-thru and 273 for the retail) when a total of 146 are required by the Specific Plan.

F. The design of the subdivision and improvements proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(1) As previously discussed in the findings contained in Subsection B of this Section 3, Tentative Parcel Map 38164 is consistent with the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.

That Specific Plan was analyzed in the previously certified EIR for the Sun Lakes North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. As previously discussed in Section 2 of this Resolution, which findings are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and as demonstrated by the Addendum referred to in that Section, the EIR disclosed and evaluated all potential environmental impacts related to the development of the Project site with the current land uses. The EIR found no significant and unavoidable impacts to any biological resources, and the Addendum found that no new or substantially greater impacts would occur pursuant to the Project. A condition of the Tentative Map approval imposes all mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that was adopted with the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No.

Resolution 2022-14

Page 19 of 33 ends

2448

5. Based on the imposed mitigation measures, the environmental impacts arising from the design and improvement of the Tentative Parcel Map will be mitigated to a level less than significance to not cause substantial environmental damage within the meaning of subsection (e) of Government Code Section 66474 and Public Resources Code Section 21100.
(2) The site is currently vacant and does not contain any significant vegetation or habitat for wildlife. The site is not located within any Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Cell or subunit which indicates that this site contains no endangered, threatened, or listed species of plant or animal, or its habitat, on the site. The site is not mapped within an area where additional surveys are required for any amphibian, mammal or other criteria species. There is no evidence that vernal pool complex, similar bodies of water, or conditions suitable for forming such bodies of water exist on the site. The site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Conservation Areas. The site is mapped within a
Borrowing Owl required habitat and a pre-construction Burrowing Owl Survey and a Nesting Bird Survey are imposed as mitigation measures for this Project (BIO-1 and 810-2). Finally, the site is mapped within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species required habitat suitability assessment survey area and an assessment was performed that determined that the site did not provide suitable habitat for the San Diego ambrosia, Brand's phacelia and the San Miguel Savory. In addition, the site does not show any existing trees on site, but even it if did, 810-3 would require replacement of such trees. Therefore, based on these findings and with the imposition of 810-1 through BIO-3, potential impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to less than significance so as not to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat within the meaning of subsection (e) of Government Code Section 66474 and Public Resources Code Section 21100.

G. The design of the subdivision and improvements proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 are not likely to cause serious health problems.
(1) Based on the warehouse building proposed to be developed on the site, and pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-7, a diesel health risk assessment was prepared which is attached to the
Addendum document as Appendix B to that document. That
analysis evaluated the potential mobile source health risk impacts to receptors (residents or workers) associated with the development of the Project. Health risk exposures were modeled in accordance with the guidelines in the SCAQMD's Health Risk Resolution 2022-14

Page 20 of 33 ends

2449
Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis.

SCAQMD recommends using the Environmental Protection
Agency's (U.S. EPA's) AERMOD model which has been
employed accordingly. Risk calculations were conducted
consistent with the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA)'s 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines.

Detailed health risk modeling results are presented at Appendix B to this Memorandum. The analysis also evaluated potential health risk impacts that could result from exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM) generated by heavy-duty diesel trucks from on-site idling, on-site travel, and off-site travel. The modeled source area is shown in Exhibit D to the Appendix B of the Addendum Document. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the Project is estimated at

1.32 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk at any potentially affected receptors within the meaning of subsection (f) of Government Code Section 66474.
(2) As noted in prior subsections, the design of proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is in conformance with the City's General Plan, the Sun Lakes North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 and the certified EIR. The Project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable Specific Plan requirements and requirements of the City's ordinances, codes, and standards including, but not limited to, the California Uniform Building Code, the City's Ordinances relating to Stormwater runoff management and controls. In addition, the design and construction of all improvements for the subdivision has been conditioned to be in conformance with adopted City street and public works standards. Based on the project design and its conformity to these standards, the design of the subdivision and its improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems within the meaning of subsection (f) of Government Code Section 66474.

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

Other than easements for City of Banning water, sewer and electrical utilities, Southern California Edison, no easements of record or easements Resolution 2022-14

Page 21 of 33 ends

2450
established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction for public access across the site have been disclosed in a search of the title records for the site and the City does not otherwise have any constructive or actual knowledge of any other such easements. Accordingly, the Parcel Map will not conflict with easements or access through the property within the meaning of subdivision (g) of Government Code Section 66474.

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

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

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

The discharge of sewage from the site will occur through a sewer connection within Sun Lakes Boulevard and proceed through a series of sewer pipes to the City's wastewater treatment plant in the southeast corner of the City. In connection with the approval of the Project, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary clearances and permits from t.he California Water Quality Control Board for the Colorado River Basin (Condition 20 (d)).

With the design of the Project and Map and compliance with this condition, the discharge of waste into the City's sewer system will not result in a violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements within the meaning of Government Code Section 66474.6.

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

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

Resolution 2022-14

Page 22 of 33 ends

2451
(2) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains goals, policies and programs for the development of industrial, commercial and residential uses. With respect to the industrial uses, the General Plan specifies the general goal that "A balanced mix of non-polluting industrial land uses which provide local jobs for the City's residents." The project will provide a non-polluting industrial use and provide jobs for City residents. Specifically, the industrial portion of the project is not · an industrial factory and the uses within the buildings and the warehouse operation are subject to several mitigation measures that require the use of electrical hookups at loading docks (AQ3), truck idling limitations (AQ-4), the use of electric or natural gas service equipment to reduce fuel consumption and emissions (AQ-5) and a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. In addition, other mitigation measures are imposed on the Project during the grading and construction of the site, including the use of low voe paint (AQ-1) and limitations on grading activities to ensure emissions do not exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds. With these mitigation measures the project will not exceed local significance thresholds for emissions · and ensure that the Project satisfies the non-polluting goal for industrial uses as provided in the General Plan.
(3) The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains several policies applicable to industrial development projects including: Policy 6 that provides that the land use map shall include sufficient industrial lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, while carefully considering Resolution 2022-14

Page 23 of 33 ends

. compatibility with adjacent lands; Policy 8 that provides that industrial lands shall be located on major roadways with good access to Interstate 10, to assure that potential traffic impacts associated with tractor-trailers are minimized; and Policy 10 that provides that the Zoning Ordinance shall include principles, design standards and guidelines which encourage development of high quality industrial projects." The Project is consistent with Policy 6 because the size of the portion of the site designated for business and warehouse uses is relatively large (30.22 acres) and is appropriately located immediately adjacent to the 1-1 O freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the north of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse use is located on the portion of the site that will be screened and buffered from residential uses to the south and east by the retail and service buildings to be located in the Retail and Services District that exists between the residential uses in Sun Lakes to the south of Sun Lakes Boulevard and the industrial building and by the Office and Professional District uses in the future that will exist between the warehouse uses and the residential and assisted living uses 2452
to the east of the Project site. The Project is consistent with Policy 8 because it will be immediately adjacent to Interstate 10 on the north, and the lot configuration and access points into and out of the site are designed to provide for the minimum amount of travel distance on Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and then onto Interstate 10 and eventually from Sun Lakes Boulevard to the Sunset Avenue and onto Interstate 10 when the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is completed. Finally, the Project, as more fully explained in connection the Project's consistency with the Specific Plan includes a variety of design elements, setbacks, landscaping features that will provide a high quality industrial project.
(4) The Economic Development Element of the General Plan provides the goal for a balanced, broadly based economy that provides a full range of economic and employment opportunities, while maintaining high standards of development and
environmental protection. The Project will increase the availability of job opportunities for not only warehouse employees but also retail and service based business opportunities. The proposed development and buildings will improve the City's property tax base, boost sales tax, provide jobs and revenue for the City's economy. The Project is also consistent with the following applicable Economic Development Element Policies:

Resolution 2022-14

Page 24 of 33 ends

Policy 2 for the City to take a proactive role in the recruitment of new businesses that will generate and broaden employment opportunities, increase discretionary incomes and contribute to City General Fund Revenues; Policy 3 to encourage infill development that will increase the efficiencies of new utilities, infrastructure and public services; and Policy 9 which require development to be responsible for its fair share of on-site and offsite improvements. The Project will provide physical space for a large business or businesses to conduct warehouse uses in the City and spaces for up to six new retail and service uses to serve the immediate community and the City. These new businesses will provide a wide range of different job opportunities from warehouse jobs to office, retail and services jobs and thereby create the diverse job opportunities in the City that will provide opportunities for residents to find new jobs to increase their discretionary incomes. Overall, through property tax, economic activity and job creation, these Project will contribute to General Fund revenues. The Project is an infill project u·sing a longstanding vacant site for land uses on lots configured and planned to be appropriately sited between other existing uses and already served by existing streets, utilities and infrastructure. Finally, the project includes design features to ensure all on-site amenities consistent with the City's development standards are paid for by 2453
Resolution 2022-14

Page 25 of 33 ends

the applicant and that fair share contributions in the form of payment of the City's applicable development impact fees are collected from the development.
(5) The proposed project is consistent with the following goals, policies, and/or programs of the Noise Element of the City's General Plan:
(a) Policy 1 states that the City shall protect noise s,ensitive land uses, including residential neighborhoods, from potentially significant sources of community noise. The certified PEIR prepared for the SLVNSP states that the maximum base
ambient noise level in Municipal Code Section 8.44.050
applicable to the Project is 75 dB(A) while existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the site range from 60.4 to 66.2 dB(A). The PEIR determined that construction noise from the Project site could be significant for the closest noise sensitive uses, which are the single-family homes located east of the Office & Professional District of the SLVNSP planning area and the senior apartments/assisted living/memory care
residential facility located east of the planning area. The PEIR recommended Mitigation Measure NOl-1 to reduce this
impact to less than significant levels. To minimize noise impacts of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, the applicant is conditioned to implement Mitigation Measure NOl-1. PEIR Table 4.10-5 demonstrates that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 would not have significant operational traffic-related noise impacts on surrounding land uses.
(b) Program 1.A. states that the City shall require building setbacks, the installation of wall and window insulation, soundwalls, earthen berms, and/or other mitigation measures in areas exceeding the City's noise limit standards for private development projects as they occur. As indicated in Table 13 (Operational Noise Level Compliance) of the Urban
Crossroads Noise Study prepared for PEIR
Addendum/Consistency Analysis, the proposed Tentative
Parcel Map No. 38164 will not exceed the City's noise limit standards for private development projects.
2454
Table 13: 01>erational Noise Level Com1>1iance
Receiver lllolseJevei~ (dBA 4q)2 · Noise0
Standa:rd (daA.L.4) .. E>tc~eds St~ndard?4
Locatlon1 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime3 Daytime Nighttime R1 47.5 46.5 60 68.3 No No
R2 38.4 37.4 60 60.4 No No
R3 44.1 42.9 60 57.0 No No
R4 45.8 44.5 60 64.5 No No
RS 45.9 44.7 60 63.1 No No
Source: Table 7-4. Urban Crossroads, February 2022 Daytime"= 7:00 a.m. • 10:00 p.m.: "N1ght!ime" = 10:00 p.m. • 7:00 a.m. (c) Program 1.8. states that the City shall maintain and enforce its Noise Control Ordinances that establish community-wide noise standards and identify measures designed to resolve noise complaints. The approval of the proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the City's noise ordinances. (d) Policy 4 states that the City shall assure low levels of traffic within neighborhoods by assigning truck routes to major roadways only. The proposed Project will construct two (2) new access driveways on Sun Lakes Boulevard, which will be constructed to meet City standards and will have direct access to/from Interstate 1 O via Highland Springs Avenue, a major roadway. The future extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard to the east may also provide for future access to/from Interstate 10 via Sunset Avenue, another major roadway. Exhibit 4 from the Urban Crossroads Traffic Assessment for the project, below, indicates truck trip distribution based on current truck route conditions:

EXHIBIT 4: PROJECT ( INDUSTRIAL TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION .. ' ..
l

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

Resolution 2022-14

Page 26 of 33 ends

2455
(1) The Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, which was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance as Section

17.96 by way of Ordinance No. 1591, provides the development standards and guidelines for the proposed Project site. The Specific Plan provides Guiding Objectives for the development in the Specific Plan Area. Those Objectives are as follows: (1) Allow for a range of land uses that reflects current market conditions given the trend away from brick-and-mortar retail; (2) Respond to an increase in e-commerce, especially driven by the coronavirus pandemic; (3) Promote high quality development to safeguard the existing asset of Sun Lakes Country Club and other development in the vicinity; (4) Locate and design truck courts and semi-truck circulation to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and development; and (5) Expand access to restaurants, shopping, and services for the nearby Sun Lakes Country Club Community.

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

Resolution 2022-14

Page 27 of 33 ends

2456
(3) The warehouse building is proposed to be located on a 30.22- acre parcel located in the northwestern portion of the Project site and is adjacent to backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the lnterstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is entirely within the Business and Warehouse District of the Specific Plan which allows for a variety of warehouse uses as permitted uses in that District. The parcel on which the warehouse building will be located is approximately 1,316,349 square feet in size and is large enough to
accommodate the proposed development of a 619,959 squarefoot warehouse building with associated truck access and parking areas, loading docks, employee parking and landscape areas.

The proposed floor area ratio will be 4 7% of the site and less than the 55% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will include landscape setbacks 10 feet from the north and west property lines of the site, consistent with required development standards, and allow for building setbacks to far exceed the required setbacks from the rear (185 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (70 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (185 feet when 20 feet is required). The parcel is also sufficient to provide for 402 parking spaces when 360-362 parking spaces are required by the Specific Plan and Banning Municipal Code Chapter 17.28. By achieving or exceeding all development standards, the proposed warehouse component of the Project satisfies the finding th~t the Project is consistent with the applicable development standards.
(4) The retail and service buildings are proposed to be located on an approximate 6.83-acre parcel that is located on the southern edge of the Project Site and adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard.

This parcel is entirely within the Retail and Service District of the Specific Plan which allows for a variety of retail, restaurant and service uses as permitted uses in that District. On this parcel, retail stores, restaurants and services buildings are proposed.

This parcel is approximately 297,492 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate the proposed development of six commercial buildings ranging size from 1 ,600 square feet to 8,400 square feet for a total of 34,000 square feet, along with associated utility, parking roadway, and landscaping
improvements. The proposed floor area ratio will be
approximately 11 % of the site and less than the 60% maximum allowed for the parcel. The development will satisfy the 20 foot and 10-foot landscape setbacks from Sun Lakes Boulevard and the west project boundary, respectively, and allow for building setbacks to exceed the required setbacks from the rear (30 feet when 20 feet is required) the side (80 feet when 20 feet is required) and front (100 feet when 1 O feet is required). The Resolution 2022-14

Page 28 of 33 ends

2457
proposed Project will provide for 289 parking spaces (16 for the drive-thru and 273 for the retail) when a total of 146 are required by the Specific Plan.
(5) The proposed project is consistent with the Noise Ordinance. As detailed in the Urban Crossroads Noise Study prep~red for PEIR Addendum/Consistency Analysis, the proposed project will not exceed an ambient noise level of 75 dB(A), as required under Banning Municipal Code ("BMC") Section 8.44.050. As detailed in the Urban Crossroads Noise Study prepared for PEIR
Addendum/Consistency Analysis, the proposed project will not exceed the maximum exterior noise levels required of
nonresidential uses. Further, the project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable noise standards set forth in BMC Section 8.44.090 and the Sun Lakes North Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 and mitigation measures imposed under the PEIR.

C. The design and layout of the proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not result in vehicular and/or pedestrian hazards.
(1) The design and layout of the proposed Project places the warehouse use on the largest of the three parcels (30.22 acres) and appropriately locates that parcel and warehouse building and associated uses immediately adjacent to the 1-10 freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the north of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse use is located on the portion of the site that will be screened and buffered from residential uses to the south and east by the retail and service buildings to be located in the Retail and Services District that exists between the residential uses in Sun Lakes Golf Course Community that lies south of Sun Lakes Boulevard and the industrial building and by the Office and Professional District uses in the future that will exist between the warehouse uses and the residential and assisted living uses to the east of the Project site. In addition, the warehouse building will back up against the rear of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center buildings rather than facing those Shopping Center buildings. By this design of the location of the warehouse building, the Project is not anticipated to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring uses and future development.
(2) The proposed Project locates truck courts and semi-truck cirnulation towards the interior and northerly portion of the site next to the Southern Pacific Railroad line and Interstate 10 and away from the residential uses in the Sun Lakes Country Club. The lot configuration Resolution 2022-14

Page 29 of 33 ends

2458
and access points into and out of the site are designed to provide for the minimum amount of travel distance on Sun Lakes Boulevard to Highland Springs Avenue and then onto Interstate 10 and eventually from Sun Lakes Boulev9,rd to the Sunset Avenue and onto Interstate 10 when the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is completed. Sun Lakes Boulevard is a Major Highway between Highland Springs Avenue to Highland Home Road with adequate capacity for truck and automobile traffic volumes for commercial and industrial purposes.

Signalized intersections are proposed to be installed at Highland Springs/Sun Lakes Boulevard and at Sun Lakes Boulevard/Country Club Drive to ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular crossing along Sun Lakes Boulevard. For these reasons, the development will not result in vehicular or pedestrian hazard.

D. The design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(1) As explained in Subsection (C) above, the warehouse building and associated uses will be surrounded by compatible uses. The entire northern boundary of the site on which the warehouse building will be located is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad line and then Interstate 10. Locating a warehouse building up against that rail line and freeway corridor is entirely appropriate and compatible with transportation uses that occur on that rail line and freeway corridor.

To the west of the warehouse building is the backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center. This is commercial development project that will shield the warehouse building from persons coming to and from that Shopping Center. Locating the warehouse building behind a commercial shopping center building will not interfere with the use of that Shopping Center and is compatible with that use. To the south of the warehouse building is the Retail and Service District of the Specific Plan. On that site there will be shops, restaurants and services businesses along with a parking lot. Located the warehouse to the rear of and on the backside of these retail and service buildings will not interfere with those retail and service business and is compatible with those uses. Finally, most of the easterly side the warehouse parcel will be adjacent to a currently vacant parcel that is proposed for office and professional uses. That future office and professional development on that easterly parcel will provide substantial screening and buffering of the residential and assisted living uses to the east of the warehouse building. In addition, a landscape buffer along the entire easterly edge of the Project site will further screen the warehouse use from those other easterly uses.

Finally, the placement of the warehouse building and associated uses on this site will mean that the warehouse building and truck uses on that site will be more than 800 feet from the northern boundary of the Sun Lakes Country Club residential community. For Resolution 2022-14

Page 30 of 33 ends

2459
all these reasons, the design of the project to place and develop a warehouse building and use on the rear of the Project site and as buffered by the other buildings and uses surrounding that site, provides that it will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(2) As noted in part (1) of this Subsection (D) above, the proposed retail, restaurant and service buildings to be located on the southerly parcel of the proposed development will be situated between Sun Lakes Boulevard on the south and the industrial warehouse building on the north. In addition, to the proposed landscaping along the frontage of Sun Lakes Boulevard, these retail, restaurant and service buildings and uses will function as a visual and physical buffer from the Sun Lakes Country Club residents on the south side of Sun Lakes Boulevard, the closest of which is approximately 800 feet away from the proposed industrial building. These proposed retail, restaurant and services uses in proximity of existing adjacent residential uses will also be similar to the uses in the existing commercial/retail uses in the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center. These buildings and uses will provide needed retail, restaurant and service uses for the residents of the Sun Lakes Country Club community. For these reasons, the Project's proposed uses on the Retail and Service District parcel will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

SECTION 5: Project Approval and Denial of Appeal. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4 above, and all of the evidence (both written and oral) in the record, this Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map 38164; approves Design Review 21-7008, and thereby denying the Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Design Review 21-7008; and imposes all of the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A to this Resolution, which are hereby incorporated.

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

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

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

Resolution 2022-14

Page 31 of 33 ends

2460
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February 2022.

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton,
City of Banning

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Kevin G. Ennis, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
Resolution 2022-14

Page 32 of 33 ends

~ Q<
KyleRnree, May~
City of Banning
2461
CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022-14, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February 2022 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Happe, Pingree, Sanchez, and Wallace.

Hamlin.

Caroline Patton, De City Clerk
City of Banning, California
Resolution 2022-14

Page 33 of 33 ends

2462
Resolution 2022-14

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2463
City of Banning
Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval
PROJECT: Design Review 21-7008 & Tentative Parcel Map 38164 (Banning Point) SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval (City Council Resolution 2022-14) APPLICANT: Sun Lakes Highland, LLC.

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

EXHIBIT A
To City Council Resolution 2022-14
* 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. All activities undertaken in connection with the development and operation of the project that is approved by Tentative Parcel Map 8164 and Design Review 21-7008 shall be subject to and shall comply with all Mitigation Measures contained in the Final EIR for the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 (SCH No. 20200029074) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted in connection with the approval of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.

3. 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 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 2464
(CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld , the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action.

4. 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.

5. The Project permitted under Design Review 21-7008 & Tentative Parcel Map 38164 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Any roof-mounted equipment or utility equipment on the side of the structure, or on the ground, shall not be visible from adjacent properties, the public right-of-way, or the parking lot. Any architectural screening that is proposed to shield the roof-mounted equipment shall be compatible in terms of colors and materials of the building. Landscape screening for ground mounted equipment shall be of sufficient size and quantity to fully screen the equipment. 11 . 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.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2465
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.

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

12. B. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16.AII graffiti shall be removed immediately or within 24 hours of notice from the City.

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

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

19. 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:

20. 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 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2466
"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.

21. 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)

22. 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.

23. 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
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
1" = 40' horizontal
1" = 50' horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal

1. 1" = 4' Vertical
1" = 40' Horizontal
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 2467
h. Landscaping Plans

1. Water Improvement Plans
j. Sewer Improvement Plans
1" = 20 Horizontal
1" = 40' Horizontal
i. 1" = 4' Vertical
1" = 40' Horizontal
i. 1" = 4' Vertical

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Provide paved golf cart access adjacent to the sidewalk through the property and at the proposed traffic signal entrance.
31 . Construct street improvements as identified by the project's traffic impact analysis (TIA).

32. 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.

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

34. Any public improvements damaged during the course of construction shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or his/her designee. 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2468

35. 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.

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

GRADING & DRAINAGE:

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2469

44. 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.

45. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs"):

46. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).

47. Temporary Sediment Control.

48. Wind Erosion Control.

49. Tracking Control.

50. Non-Storm Water Management.

51. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.

52.AII 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.

53. 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.

54. 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 .

55. 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.

56. 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.

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

TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION:

58. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval in writing from the Fire Marshall for the plans for all public or private access drives or streets. The plans shall include plan and sectional views and indicate the grade and width of the access road measured flow-line to flow-line. When a dead-end access exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required, a clearly marked fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided and approved by the Fire Marshall. Applicable covenant, conditions or restrictions or other approved documents shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions such as speed bumps/humps, 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2470
control gates or other modifications within said easement or access road unless prior approval of the Fire Marshall is granted.

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

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

61. 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.

62. 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:

63. 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.

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

65. 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.

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

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

68. Enclosures Design Criteria:
a. The size and dimensions of the trash enclosure shall be based on the required number and size of containers at a minimum accommodating one (1) container each for trash, recyclables and organics materials.
b. Enclosure shall be architecturally compatible with the primary building on site to provide a coordinated design.
c. Exterior materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the building walls. d. Chain link fencing with or without/plastic slats is prohibited. e. Enclosure shall have solid metal or wood gates with latches that can be secured in an open or closed position.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 2471
WATER:
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 accessibil ity.

1. City Engineer approval shall be obtained in writing prior to the construction of any solid waste enclosure.

69. 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.

70. Separate irrigation meters will be required for outdoor use. 71 . 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.

72. 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.

73. 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:

74. 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.

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

WASTEWATER

76. 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.

77. 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:
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 2472

78. 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.

79. 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.

80.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.

81. 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:

82. 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 offsite 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.

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

84. 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.

85. 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.

86. 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).

87. 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.

88.An original Mylar of the final map (after recordation) shall be provided to the City for the record files.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2473

89. 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.

90. 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:

91. 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.

92. 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

93. 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

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

95. 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.

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

97. 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.

98. 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 99. 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 99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2474
operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic sensors for access. Ref.

CFC 506.1
100. 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
101. 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)
102. 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
103. 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].
104. 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 Condition Added by Planning Commission and Modified by City Council 105. 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..

Condition Added by City Council
106. The Developer shall pay the City $175,000 to be used by the City for fire station/fire apparatus capital improvements in the City, which amount shall be in addition to the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee that is owing for the Project. The fee shall be paid prior to the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on the warehouse building.
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3100 2475
***END***
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 2476
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 
2477
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.
2478
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.
2479
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.
2480
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
2481
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 2482
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2483
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2484
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2485
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2486
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2487
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2488
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2489
Exhibit A - Comment Cards
2490
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2491
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2492
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2493
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2494
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2495
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2496
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2497
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2498
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2499
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2500
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2501
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
2502
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2503
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2504

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
2505
Exhibit $ - Comment Cards
2506
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
2507
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

It is abundantly clear from what has transpired over the course of the hearings for this project that this Council and City administration are seriously disconnected from the community. Even if you can dismiss the emotional pleas you have heard from scores of community members, your decision must be based upon evidence and facts in the record before you. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT YOU MAY NOT APPROVE THE DEVELOPER’S PROJECT AS PRESENTED ON THE BAISIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE YOU.

The following is by no means an exhaustive listing of all that is wrong with the record before you, but it is enough to demonstrate that if you want to accommodate the developer’s request, you must first amend the Specific Plan, amend the City’s Commercial Vehicle Routes (Resolution 2005-91), and conduct an environmental analysis that adequately addresses and mitigates project impacts.

Supporting facts:

1. The proposed project conflicts with substantive requirements of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan.
a. Key excerpts from the Specific Plan are provided on page 5 for your convenience. The Specific Plan is only 41 pages and each of you should take the time to read and digest it before taking any action on development of this site.
b. Circulation. There is not an exhibit that clearly depicts the proposed parcel boundaries in the current agenda package or any of the prior agenda packages. Based upon language within the staff report, the public can only assume that the proposed parcel configurations conform to the land use designation boundaries under the specific plan (see Figure 2, page 4 of the staff report). The circulation design for the warehouse has usurped the intended access for the Office and Professional District, which besides being in conflict with specific plan provisions requiring truck access to be limited to the Business and Warehouse District, effectively landlocks this parcel. c. Pedestrian Circulation. The expansive foot print of the warehouse building, associated slopes, and the use of the intend access to the Office and Professional District for truck circulation preclude any reasonable implementation of the fundamental concept within the Specific Plan for pedestrian interconnection between the three land use districts.

The landscaping plan on page 24 of Attachment 5 of the staff report provides a good overview of the site plan that illustrates the complete lack of consideration for this key specific plan provision.
d. Phasing. Specific Plan provisions at Section 4.7.1 clearly provide that the retail uses along the Sun Lakes Boulevard frontage are to go in first. The proposed reversed phasing with this project is in direct conflict with the Specific Plan. 2508
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 2 of 6 ends

e. Screening. The conclusory statements in the staff report regarding the effects of landscaping and the future retail buildings in screening the proposed massive warehouse must instead be supported by substantial evidence. This could take the form of illustrative diagrams depicting lines of sight from key perspectives and/or an on-site framework erection (as is used within coastal communities to understand building mass and visibility). Analysis must take into effect comparative finished grades, including that the truck drive adjacent to The Lakes development is 10 feet above that existing facility, and that finished grades for the warehouse pad are up to 10 feet above existing Sun Lakes Boulevard.
f. Screening. The plans for the warehouse building incredulously include a 14-foot concrete screen wall along the truck docks where they face the railroad and freeway, but a 6-foot open metal fence where the truck docks face Sun Lakes Boulevard (see plan sheet DAB A1.6, page 7 of staff report Attachment 5). Even if the future retail buildings would ultimately provide effective screening, how on earth will a six-foot open fence provide screening in the interim?
g. Screening. The plans before you include no landscape buffer adjacent to The Lakes development (recall that the warehouse truck drive at this common boundary is perched 10 feet above them). See the landscaping plan on page 24 of Attachment 5 of the staff report.

2. The CEQA analysis presented for your consideration does not take key project characteristics into consideration
a. Analyses for aesthetics, air quality and noise does not appear to take into consideration the relative grade of the source and receptors, namely that the trucks along the eastern access drive are 10 feet above the adjacent receptors.
b. Analyses for air quality and noise does not appear to take into consideration the design change that pushed the truck access for the warehouse out onto the access panhandle for the Office and Professional District and closer to sensitive receptors (see Exhibit C, page 11 of 2/10/22 air quality memo and Exhibit 8-A, page 36 of 2/7/22 noise study report).
c. Exhibit 6 on addendum page 69 and Exhibit 7 on addendum page 71 suggest that attenuation effects for a 6-foot wall along the edge of The Lakes development have been considered in the noise analysis – how can such a wall provide any such attenuation when the finished grade on the truck access road is above the top of the wall?
2509
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 3 of 6 ends

d. Analysis for air quality and noise appears to erroneously characterize the nature of outdoor use areas for residential receptors across Sun Lakes Boulevard (assumes no outdoor yard areas oriented toward the road; see page 10 of 2/10/22 air quality memorandum).
e. Analysis of biological impacts does not address the narrow endemic plant species of concern, which are correctly Marvin’s Onion and Many-stemmed dudleya (verifiable with interactive mapping tool on Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency website).
f. Analysis of biological impacts does not address the riverine/riparian resources on the site.
a. The feasibility of the temporary noise barrier noted in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 on page 67 of the addendum must be demonstrated. Slopes and grade differentials at the interface with The Lakes facility suggest it is not likely a temporary noise barrier could be effectively erected. If this is the case, construction noise impacts would be unavoidable and significant and would trigger the requirement for a subsequent EIR. b. The resolution presented for your approval claims that Condition of Approval 2 pulls forward all applicable mitigation measures from the prior specific plan EIR (see item F on page 4). No such condition is apparent in the conditions appended to the resolution posted with the staff report.

3. The intended CEQA compliance vehicle for this project only became evident with release of the City Council agenda a few days ago
Prior to issuance of public notices for this hearing sometime between February 1, 2022 and February 4, 2022, notices and staff reports had only disclosed that staff had done a consistency analysis and that a Notice of Determination had been prepared for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. No documentation associated with the purported staff consistency analysis was made available to the public, nor does it appear to have been provided to the Planning Commission, or the City Council until a few days ago. It was only with the release of the agenda packet a few days ago that the 686-page addendum finally surfaced. The fundamental omissions with the applicability of an addendum in this circumstance aside, that document is only dated February 10, 2022, including some of the supporting technical analysis! Even if the City is not required to provide public review for an addendum, how on earth did the Planning Commission consider this information, how on earth has the Council had time to independently review it, and how on earth did the City release a public notice relying on this document before it even existed?
2510
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 4 of 6 ends

4. City zoning and General Plan designations
The General Plan and Zoning exhibit included as page 28 of Attachment 5 to the staff report depicts land use designations that are the reverse of those in the Specific Plan – namely a Business Park designation is depicted adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard and a General Commercial designation is depicted adjacent to the freeway. This fundamental discrepancy in the City’s plans must be resolved.

5. Commercial vehicle routes
The City has designated certain streets in the city for use by heavy trucks by means of Resolution 2005-91. A copy of the current map is attached for your convenience. Please note that Sun Lakes Boulevard is not a designated commercial vehicle route. 2511
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 5 of 6 ends

Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (Amendment 5) Excerpts Section 2.2-1 – Semi-truck access is to be limited to the Business and Warehouse District.

Section 2.2.5 – on-site pedestrian circulation to connect the three districts and facilitate employee access to restaurants and retail uses. Repeated in Section 3.2.1, item 4; Section 3.2.5, item 5; Section

3.2.6, item 5; and Section 3.2.7, item 3.

Section 3.2.1, item 2 – provide a connected internal drive aisle linking the Retail & Service District to the Office & Professional District entry road to allow greater passenger vehicle access. Repeated in Section 3.2.6, Item 2 and Section 3.2.7, item 8.

Section 3.2.1, item 5 – stormwater management facilities are to be developed as landscaped features that integrate with onsite pedestrian circulation system.

Section 3.2.1, item 7 – drive aisles are to be design to minimize conflicts with pedestrian movements.

Section 3.2.2, item 4 – provide enhanced architectural detail for Business Park & Warehouse District building elevations visible from Sun Lakes Boulevard.

Section 3.2.3, item 7 - locate, grade, and design projects to direct stormwater runoff from building roofs and paved areas into swaled landscape areas that serve a dual purpose of retention/infiltration as well as a visual amenity.

Section 3.2.4, item 2 - locate, design, and/or screen truck courts, dock doors, and truck parking areas so they are not visible from Sun Lakes Boulevard. Ensure that these areas are concealed while in use, including the tops of truck trailers. Repeated in Section 3.2.5, item 4.

Section 3.2.4, item 3 - use evergreen screen trees along with shrubs and groundcover to create a 20- foot-wide landscape buffer along the northeastern Specific Plan boundary adjacent to the existing residential parcels. Select tree species and size to ensure a solid tree screen above the existing wall within one year. Repeated in Section 3.2.6, item 4.

Section 3.2.7, item 4 - provide clear and well-designed pedestrian access to buildings from the street, parking lot, and Specific Plan pedestrian circulation system through careful building siting, circulation design, decorative hardscape, and landscaping.

Section 4.6.2 - Specific Plan Amendments are required when proposed changes to text or exhibits significantly alter the intent or development concepts of the Specific Plan. Specific Plan Amendments shall be processed in the same manner as the original Specific Plan approval, which includes review by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council.

Section 4.7.1 - construction of development and improvements within the Retail & Service District shall be completed prior to occupancy of development within the Business & Warehouse District. 2512
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 6 of 6 ends

2513
1 From: Harry Finigan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 2:06 PM
To: Caroline Patton
Subject: Banning Point warehouse project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
I am opposed to allow a truck warehouse in this location. Senior resident communities. Sun Lakes, Four Seasons,and the Lakes Memory care facilities.

Exhibit B - Written Public Comment
2514
Special City Council Meeting 02-17-2022 on Banning Point Project You are seeing before you this evening a group of people that have expressed a concern about this project and
future projects that will effect our City.

You the City Council need to investigate all areas of what is presented to you to vote on. This means you need to go
beyond what is stated by staff to you. This means that
information presented may be incorrect or slanted to be made acceptable. I understand that READING all the
attachments is time consuming but is necessary to be
successful as a Council Member.

If a problem is presented do not through it away, ask for an explanation that is believable.

It is time for the City Council start asking your voters what they want, not what you want or the City Staff wants. I believe you are blocking the will of the Community which makes you out of touch. You are becoming Autocratic,
instead of Democratic.

Thank You
Paul Perkins

Page 1 of 1 ends

Exhibit B - Written Public Comment
2515
Good Evening Mayor, City Council, Staff and Residents of Banning, My name is Ron Pitts; my Wife's Name is Bobby Pitts. We are residents in District 3 and are respectfully asking for the recusal of Council Member Hamlin in the Banning Point Warehouse vote tonight and are further asking for her resignation as City Council member for District 3 immediately. In addition to the evidence that the lawyer for the Pass Action Group submitted of bias in favor of the Banning Point warehouse project the following additional reasons are provided.

1. Council Member Hamlin has received over 100 emails from concerned citizens asking her to vote NO on this project. She forwarded those emails to city employees like Adam Rush but then forwarded those same emails to Josh Zemon (managing principal, creation equity (developer)), some to Phil Lomardo (Cushman & Wakefield, leasing broker for this project) and some to her public relations company, OPRUSA, often times complaining that she is receiving and I quote "another one." Or "Another one from someone who doesn't understand ... "

2. On several occasions she has sent Sun Lakes and Pass Action Group Facebook postings that are private Facebook pages to these same individuals who have no access to them "warning " them of comments and actions i.e. protests, hiring of lawyers, what the Sun Lakes HOA is thinking about, etc. For example and I quote "This is what is being spread around the community. There are ads in the newspaper, letters to the editor and articles in our community magazine. They are raising funds to sue the City and possibly the developers. You have a real battle on your hands." Or "I hope I'm not bugging you, but I feel you need to know. These posts are from private groups that only Sun Lakers can see. I want to keep you updated on the 11chatter11•

3. By her actions and comments she no longer represents the Citizens of District 3 but feels it is her duty to keep the developers and their vendors informed about what her constituents are doing to stop this atrocity. Her numerous emails to the developers ( over 100) show that her concern is ensuring the project goes through as planned. And again I quote from emails between the Council Member and Creation Equity.
"Josh
Congratulations on passing the first hurdle with the Planning Commission. As you saw, my constituents are extremely upset with me and don't understand that there was nothing I could do. It was not presented to the Council for a vote - yet. I am sure the group will appeal but probably have no legal grounds to stop the project." Email to Josh Zemon (Creation Equity dated Dec 2, 2021.) (Day after planning commission vote to approve.) "Josh
I guess your company needs an aggressive campaign to correct the misinformation, speculations, rumors, and fears about the Banning Pointe project. Maybe some sort of handout with the facts might be helpful.

Mary" Email dated 13 Dec 2021 @ 1 O :30am
Exhibit B - Written Public Comment
2516

4. Her Constituents have no trust in her ability nor do they believe that she can represent them in the future. She even believes this, as on multiple emails she has made the same statements. From the same email above to Josh Zemon (Creation Equity dated Dec 2, 2021.):
"I need to do some damage control. A building is just a building until someone occupies it. I would like to be seen and being involved in finding suitable businesses to occupy the property.

I know that I can't control who leases the property, but if I can be perceived as being part of the selection process, it might go a long way to repair the negativity. " Not only does this particular email show what she believes is a lost of trust from the Constituents of District 3 but also shows her complete bias for voting "Yes" prior to the tonight's hearing on the appeal before the council.

Here is another example in he own words: "I know. All I tried to do is give the facts. When that sign was put up and they heard the word "warehouse" the panic set in. Their ears are closed and their mouths are open.

Now my reputation is ruined. People I have known for 14 years won't speak to me. Some are calling for me to resign, sell my home and move. There is even a recall movement.

It's become a nightmare." Email dated 11/29/2021 to Josh Zemon. This seems to enough of a nightmare that she has hired a Public Relations firm (OPRUSA) to repair her reputation, but even with that the voters in her district are organizing a recall campaign because they do not believe or trust her.

5. Mary Hamlin has had several "off the record" meetings with the developers and their representatives. I'm sure they are just "fact" finding but from a perception point of view, individuals (Mr. Santana) have been remove from their positions for far less.

Again according to emails between the Leasing Broker for the project and the Council Member:

Council Member Hamlin meet with Phil Lomardo 6 Dec 2021@ 2:00 pm at Starbucks in Barnes and Noble Citrus Plaza, Redlands to discuss working with Cushman and Wakefield in assisting to choose the tenants for the warehouse.

Or email exchange between Josh Zemon and Mary Hamlin:
"Hi Councilwoman Hamlin - can we plan on 12:00pm PT on 11/10? Location TBD, maybe lunch at a local Banning restaurant? Please let me know and I will circulate an invite.

Thank you,
Josh
"12 noon on the 10th will work for me.

Mary Hamlin"
"Did you decide on a location for Wed? I would vote for Russo's since Station Tap House is owned by a member of the City Council.

Mary Hamlin
Sent from my iPhone"
2517
Based on the above and over 100 emails between Council Member Mary Hamlin, Josh Zemon of Creation Equity (the developers) and their representatives, her bias in favor of this project both by deeds and written word under both State and Local Law require her to recluse herself from consideration of this project, the perception of wrong doing and the most important point the lost of Trust and belief that she can not nor will she represent the Constituents of District 3 in the future. We ask that she recluse herself from the vote and resign her position as Council Member for District 3 tonight.

Thank You
Exhibit B - Written Public Comment
2518
1 From: Sandra Calderon
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 3:54 PM
To: Caroline Patton
Cc: Adam Rush
Subject: FW: Banning Point | Creation Equity
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcreationequity.com%2fproject%2fbanningpoint%2f&c=E,1,1R6xRlVfSBZEcgwBdGMFIUOqjoAWp1D20hdgllL3CudGi8hpkv4FOd0oy88Jb01oeilIcUICMR1KPRXjybm6J FRZyELxE08xGFRd7rUl88rWuCO_mo7xJNmT&typo=1
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Aranda <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 9:30 PM
To: Sandra Calderon <[email protected]>
Subject: Banning Point | Creation Equity
Please find attached CREATIONS public information on their website regarding Banning Point wherein CREATION describe the following: Banning Point provides excellent freeway access with a full diamond interchange at Highland Springs Avenue and the I 10 freeway allowing for unparalleled is an access I am requesting this Document added to the record.

Also aware and it indicates that Banning point is convenient alternative to the perpetual land constrained and expensive inland Empire West market located just 22 miles east of Redlands Banning point provides a scalable solution at a fraction of the cost I would like to make part of the record this entire section a total of six pages from the creation website I have attached a copy of the website for your review if you prefer I can send it to you in PDF form please advise and confirm your receipt I would like to make this part of the public record. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcreationequity.com%2fproject%2fbanningpoint%2f&c=E,1,1R6xRlVfSBZEcgwBdGMFIUOqjoAWp1D20hdgllL3CudGi8hpkv4FOd0oy88Jb01oeilIcUICMR1KPRXjybm6J FRZyELxE08xGFRd7rUl88rWuCO_mo7xJNmT&typo=1
Exhibit B - Written Public Comment
2519
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. CVRI2201482
KEVIN P. BUNDY (State Bar No. 231686)
GABRIEL M.B. ROSS (State Bar No. 224528)
ORRAN G. BALAGOPALAN (State Bar No. 341508)

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 552-7272
Facsimile: (415) 552-5816
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner PASS ACTION GROUP

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE HISTORIC COURTHOUSE

PASS ACTION GROUP,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF BANNING; CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BANNING; and DOES
1-20,
Respondents and Defendants.

Case No. CVRI2201482

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF

MANDATE
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Harold W. Hopp, Dept. 1
Action Filed: April 18, 2022
Trial Date: March 13, 2024
SUN LAKES HIGHLAND, LLC;
CREATION EQUITY, LLC; and DOES
21-40,
Real Parties in Interest.

2520
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. CVRI2201482
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 9, 2024, the Court in the above-captioned action entered Judgment Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandate. A true and correct copy of the Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

DATED: April 12, 2024 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
By:

KEVIN P. BUNDY
GABRIEL M.B. ROSS
ORRAN G. BALAGOPALAN
Attorneys for PASS ACTION GROUP
2521
Exhibit A
2522
IF E
2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
3 APR 0 9 2024
4 E. Es. o. - . p
5 X
6 ft
7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
10 11 PASS ACTION GROUP, Case No. CVRI2201482
12 Petitioner and Plaintiff, IBROPOSEEM JUDGMENT
13 v. Dept.: 1
Judge: Hon. Harold W. Hopp
14 CITY OF BANNING; CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BANNING; and DOES Action Filed: April 18, 2022 15 1- 20, Trial Date: March 13, 2024
16 Respondents and Defendants.
17 SUN LAKES HIGHLAND, LLC;
18 CREATION EQUITY, LLC; and DOES
21- 40,
19 Real Parties in Interest.
20 21 Petitioner and Plaintiff Pass Action Group (" Petitioner") challenged the City of 22 Banning' s February 17, 2022 adoption of Resolution 2022- 14, which approved( 1) Tentative 23 Parcel Map No. 38164, ( 2) Design Review 21- 7008, and( 3) an Addendum and related findings 24 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(" CEQA") for the Banning Point Project. 25 The hearing on Petitioner' s Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for 26 Injunctive Relief(" Petition") in this matter was held on March 13, 2024 before the Honorable 27 Harold W. Hopp in Department 1 of the Riverside County Superior Court. Kevin P. Bundy and 28 Orran G. Balagopalan of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP appeared on behalf of Petitioner.

PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. CVRI2201482 2523
1 Ginetta L. Giovinco of Richards, Watson& Gershon appeared on behalf of Respondents and 2 Defendants City of Banning and City Council of the City of Banning. Paige H. Gosney of Allen 3 Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP appeared on behalf of Real Parties in Interest Sun 4 Lakes Highland, LLC and Creation Equity, LLC.
5 On March 15, 2024, having reviewed the administrative record, Petitioner' s request for 6 judicial notice, the briefs and papers submitted by counsel, and the arguments of counsel, and 7 the matter having been submitted for decision, the Court issued its Ruling on Matter Submitted 8 (" Ruling"), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
10 1. The Petition is granted for the reasons and to the extent set forth in this Court' s 11 March 15, 2024 Ruling.
12 2. A peremptory writ of mandate (" Writ") directed to Respondents and Defendants 13 shall issue under seal of this Court:
14 a. Ordering Respondents and Defendants to set aside and vacate all approvals 15 for the Banning Point Project in which City Council Member Mary Hamlin participated, 16 including Resolution 2022- 14, Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Design Review 21- 7008, and 17 the Addendum and related CEQA findings for the Banning Point Project, within 90 days; and 18 b. Instructing Respondents and Defendants that any future hearing 19 reconsidering approval of the Banning Point Project must be conducted without the participation 20 of the biased council member.
21 3. Respondents and Defendants shall file and serve an initial return to the Writ no 22 later than 120 days after service of the Writ or as otherwise agreed by the parties. The return 23 shall specify the actions taken to comply with the terms of the Writ. Respondents and 24 Defendants may file supplemental returns to the writ as necessary to apprise the Court of any 25 further actions taken to comply with the Writ.
26 4. For purposes of cost recovery, Petitioner is the prevailing party. Petitioner may 27 apply to recover its costs in an amount to be determined by this Court pursuant to a timely filed 28 2
PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. CVRI2201482
2524
1 and served memorandum of costs, subject to any timely filed and served motion to tax costs. 2 ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3. 1700.)
3 5. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to consider a motion by Petitioner for an award 4 of reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1021. 5 and California 5 Rules of Court, rule 3. 1702.
6 The Clerk is ordered to enter this Judgment.
7 8 DATED: 2024
9 10 feilyea5 § 60t) 4
PION. HAROLD W. HOPP
11 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
12 13
1763561. 2
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 3
PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case No. CVRI2201482 2525

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Historic Court House
Ruling on Matter Submitted
03/15/2024
8:08 AM
Department 1
CVRI2201482
PASS ACTION GROUP vs CITY OF BANNING
Honorable Harold W. Hopp, Judge
E. Escobedo, Courtroom Assistant
Court Reporter: None

Page 1 of 11 ends

APPEARANCES:

No Appearances
Court subsequently rules on matter taken under submission on: 03/13/2024 for Hearing on Writ of Mandate (CEQA).
-
Petitioner Pass Action Group brings this action challenging the approval of the Banning Point Project, which it alleges violates CEQA, petitioner’s and the public’s right to a fair hearing, planning and zoning laws, and the Banning Municipal Code. The Banning Point Project (the Project) includes a tentative parcel map and design review authorizing the subdivision of the site and construction of a warehouse of approximately 620,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet of office space, and 150,000 square feet of high-cube cold storage and six retail buildings comprising 34,000 square feet. The property that would be subject to the development is 47 acres of undeveloped land in the City of Banning. Respondents are the City and its City Council. Real party is Sun Lakes Highland, LLC and Creation Equity, LLC. Petition, ¶¶s 14 to 18.

Right to a Fair Hearing. The petition and complaint raise four issues. First, that three members of the City Council participated in the discussion and approval of the Project despite having made comments allegedly showing bias in favor of it, violating Petitioner’s and the public’s right to a fair hearing.
“Quasi-judicial or "administrative" hearings are subject to the fair process requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(b) and, when a vested property or liberty interest is implicated, to the due process requirements of both the federal and state constitutions.” The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cal. CEB 2023) § 2.56 citing Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212. “The decision-maker must be fair and impartial.” Id. citing, Woody's Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 2526

Page 2 of 11 ends

1027 (invalidated city council decision on appeal of land use application when council member appealing planning commission decision showed bias and violated local procedures); Golden Day Schools v. Dept. of Education (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 695, 709 (“initial decision-maker may not sit on review board”). “Fair process and due process require both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness.” Id., citing Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 94 (“due process violation when lawyer, advocate for defendant city, later acted as advisor to the judge of administrative appeal”).
“Comments made by an agency member before hearing may constitute evidence of an unacceptable probability of actual bias such that the member could not act as a ‘reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer.’” Id., citing Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 484. “A personal interest or involvement in the outcome of a matter, or with any participant, that is unrelated to the merits requires disqualification.” The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cal. CEB 2023) § 2.167; see Mennig v. City Council (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 341, 351. “This rule does not preclude holding opinions, philosophies, or strong feelings about issues or specific projects; it also does not proscribe expression of views about matters of importance in the community, particularly during an election campaign.” Id. City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768, 780-782. “The decisionmaker's actions, however, must not ‘cross the line into advocacy’ for or against a project.” Id., citing Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 974. Proof of actual bias is not necessary; “it is sufficient to invalidate a decision if ‘an unacceptable probability of actual bias’ by the municipal decision-maker is established.” Id., citing Woody's Group, 233 Cal.App.4th at 1022.
“There is a presumption that administrative adjudicators are unbiased. In the absence of financial or other personal interest, and when rules mandating an agency's internal separation of functions and prohibiting ex parte communications are observed, the presumption of impartiality can be overcome only by specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias.” Id., citing Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board (2009) 45 Cal.4th 731, 741; Petrovich, 48 Cal.App.5th at 973 (“requiring ‘concrete facts’ establishing bias”). “The party asserting bias has the burden of establishing a disqualifying interest.” Id., citing Sweeney v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 1093, 1144.
2527

Page 3 of 11 ends

Petitioner contends that three council members made statements demonstrating bias. The Court finds that they have met their burden as to one of the three.

Council member Mary Hamlin emailed Petitioner’s president, stating that “project appears to be good for the whole community and in the long run will lift the entire community.” AR 13051. The email included an attached information sheet that stated the project would have a positive impact on new housing, new businesses and continued growth that would “far outpace” any adverse impact on property values. AR 13054. The information sheet indicated that it would be a mistake for the City to deny approval. AR 13051, 13054. Council member Hamlin also distributed a document on the second day of a Planning Commission hearing on the Project. The document stated that the Project was not a “distribution center” and would have only three large trucks per hour, that she would have opposed it if the Project were a distribution center with hundreds of trucks. AR 17080-17085. In fact, the project is anticipated to have as many as 296 truck trips per day. AR 592. The following day, Hamlin emailed the managing principal of Real Party Creation Equity, congratulating him on the Planning Commission’s approval. AR 19736. She asked to be involved in leasing discussions for the project to do damage control and “repair the negativity” to her reputation with constituents. AR 19723-19736.

The following week, she further suggested contacting a reporter to correct the record and help her repair her damaged image. AR 17615.

Council member Alberto Sanchez twice posted to social media commenting favorably on the Project before the City Council held a hearing. One post called the Project “great,” bringing jobs and tax revenue, reducing homeless population and that that retail aspect “looks great as well.” AR 13056.

Another added that traffic is being mitigated and that this would be growth, which Banning residents want. AR 19728.

Council member Colleen Wallace, then Mayor, gave a state of the city address in October, 2021, stating that building in Banning is needed to encourage children who grew up in Banning to return and invest. AR 13042-13043.

Council member Sanchez moved for approval of the Project and council member Wallace seconded the motion. However, even with that context, their statements do not overcome the presumption that 2528

Page 4 of 11 ends

they are unbiased. There has been no showing of a financial or personal interest in the Project and no specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias, in the language used by the Court in the Morongo Band of Mission Indians case. 45 Cal.4th at 741.

Councilmember Hamlin, however, demonstrated a personal interest in the success of the Project, rehabilitating her reputation with her constituents. Further, her statements clearly advocate a position in favor of the Project. She not only made statements in favor of the Project, she circulated information that inaccurately understated the number of truck trips the Project would generate, contrary to the final traffic study. AR 592. She stated that the warehouse was not a distribution center but was more like an industrial office building, which is clearly incorrect. AR 13052. While review of the Project was pending, she asked to be involved in leasing discussions. She encouraged the principal of Creation Equity to seek positive press releases and to engage in an “aggressive campaign” to support the Project. AR 17615, 19742. These actions are similar to the “coaching” found in Petrovich, 48 Cal.App.5th at 974-976 (council member took affirmative steps to assist project proponents, acting as an advocate, not as a neutral). That she stated at the hearing that she was unbiased and ultimately voted against its approval does not show her to be unbiased.

City of Fairfield, on which the City relies, is a different situation. As the Supreme Court noted, the “proceedings did not turn upon the adjudication of disputed facts” or applying standards to facts, “the few factual controversies were submerged into the overriding issue of whether the construction of the shopping center would serve the public interest.” 14 Cal.3d at 779-780. Moreover, many of the statements made by council members in City of Fairfield were made during election campaigns. The Supreme Court stated that such statements “do not disqualify the candidate from voting on matters which come before him after his election.” 14 Cal.3d at 781.

These factors are not present here. The City Council was making a determination as to whether the facts required a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report or whether an addendum to the Project Environmental Impact Report would be sufficient. Council member Hamlin’s statements were not made during an election campaign. Her participation in the City Council’s discussion and decision to approve the Project requires the Court to grant the petition. Woody’s Group, Inc., 233 Cal.App.4th at 1031 (remedy for participation of biased council member is to grant writ and send 2529

Page 5 of 11 ends

matter back to city council with instructions to reconsider the matter without the participation of the biased council member).

Although the Court is not required to go farther, having found sufficient basis to grant the writ, it will briefly explain its view on the remaining issues. In summary, it does not find that Petitioner has carried its burden of proof on any remaining issue and would not grant the writ but for the fair hearing issue.

There was substantial evidence to support the Council’s decision not to prepare a supplemental EIR.

Petitioner contends that the City failed to comply with CEQA because it merely prepared an addendum to the Program EIR and did not prepare a supplemental or subsequent EIR for the Project addressing cumulative impacts from the Project and the Sunset Crossroads project, which is currently under environmental review. The Sunset Crossroads project would include 5.5 million square feet of warehouse space and would be located not far from the Project.

Whenever a further discretionary approval by the lead or responsible agency is required for a project for which an EIR or a negative declaration has been certified or adopted, the agency has to consider whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR should be required for that further approval. Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the CEQA (CEB 2022-2023) § 19.2. “To give a degree of finality to the results, CEQA includes a presumption against requiring any further environmental review once an EIR has been prepared for a project.” Id., citing Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21161; Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, 949; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15162.

As the court explained in the leading case of Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073: “[S]ection 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired [§21167(c)], and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process.” Once a project has been approved, no additional steps to comply with CEQA are required, unless a further discretionary approval of the project is necessary. Id. citing Martis Camp Community Ass'n v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 604. New information appearing after a project approval does not require that the approval be reopened (CEQA Guidelines 2530

Page 6 of 11 ends

§ 15162(c)), but if another discretionary approval is needed, “the agency considering that approval must determine whether further CEQA review is required due to changes in the project, changes in circumstances, or new information.” Id. citing CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a), (c); Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 127, 131.

There are three formats available to add to or amend the EIR depending on the circumstances. If major changes are required to make a previous EIR adequate, a subsequent EIR is required. Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the CEQA (CEB 2022-2023) § 19.4.

A supplemental EIR may be prepared by the agency if any of the conditions requiring a further EIR exist, “but only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.” Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the CEQA (CEB 2022-2023) §19.5; CEQA Guidelines §15162(a). CEQA Guidelines do not define “minor additions or changes” however, a supplement only has to have the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate. Id.; CEQA Guidelines §15163(b). “Thus, an EIR supplement need respond only to the project changes, changes in circumstances, or new information that triggered the need to prepare a further EIR ….” Id. The discretionary decision to prepare a supplemental EIR as opposed to a subsequent EIR “is tested under a reasonableness standard, with the focus on ‘the substance of the EIR, not its nominal title.” Id.; City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 526, 540.

An addendum to a previously certified EIR must be prepared “when changes or additions to the EIR are necessary but none of the conditions in” CEQA Guidelines §15162 that trigger preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the CEQA (CEB 2020-2021) §19.6; citing Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 946. “Preparation of an addendum is thus a way to make minor corrections to an EIR without recirculating the EIR for further review.” Id. at §19.6; CEQA Guidelines §15164(c). “An addendum may also be used to evaluate changes to a project, changes in circumstances, or new information, and to document the agency’s determination that a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. Id.; CEQA Guidelines §15164(e). “The agency's decision-making body must consider the addendum along with the final EIR before making a decision on the project.” Ibid.

Where the agency finds “that impacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly 2531

Page 7 of 11 ends

from those described in the prior EIR, a further EIR is not required.” Id. at § 19.13 citing Bowman v.

City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1079 (following a change in access to a project site, an updated traffic report’s conclusions were substantially identical to those in the original EIR, which were not considered substantial so, no further EIR was required); see Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 802 (an addendum’s analysis showing that noise and air pollution impacts from airport operations would decrease in the future, supported agency's determination that changes would not result in new significant impacts or substantially different impacts from what was described in prior EIRs); Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538, 1548 (subsequent EIR not required for change in source of water for project because addendum to EIR concluded that impacts were same as those assessed in project EIR even though provider of water service changed).

There is no dispute but that the differences between the original project and the current version of the Project do not result in new significant environmental impacts. Indeed, the current version of the Project is significantly smaller than the original project.

Have there been substantial changes “with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would require major revisions to the environmental impact report”? Cal. Pub.

Res. Code § 21166(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15612(a)(2) (adds “due to the involvement of new significant, environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.”) If there are such changes, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required only if:
1) the change in circumstances is substantial; 2) the change involves new or more severe significant environmental impacts; 3) the change will require major revisions to the previous EIR on the new or more severe impacts; and 4) the impacts were not covered in the previous EIR. Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the CEQA (CEB 2022-2023) § 19.14.

Third, has new information that “was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete" become available? Id. at § 19.18 citing Cal.

Pub. Res. Code §21166(c). The CEQA Guidelines explain that the new information could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence and must be of “substantial importance.” Id. citing CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3).
2532

Page 8 of 11 ends

Petitioner argues that both the second (substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken) and third (new information that could not have been known has become available) conditions exist because of the Sunset Crossroads project.

Petitioner asserts that three months after the PEIR was certified, the City issued a notice of preparation for thee Sunset Crossroads project. AR112944-12961. Sunset Crossroads involves over 500 acres and, as noted above, would include 5.5 million square feet of industrial/logistics use. AR 12944, 12950, 12956. It requires an amendment of the City’s general plan for much of the acreage, a specific plan creating 19 distinct planning areas, a parcel map and vesting tract map, and a preannexation and development agreement. AR 12944-12945. The Sunset Crossroads would be about half a mile away from the Project at the closest point. The Sun Lakes senior community is between the projects. AR 8580, 12954. The Sunset Crossroads would include an extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard, which trucks from the Project could use to access the nearby freeway (although as City points out, there would be a much shorter access to the freeway without using the extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard).

Petitioner is correct, of course, that the PEIR and the addendum do not analyze the cumulative impact of the Project and Sunset Crossroads. However, City argues that Petitioner has not shown that the changed circumstances compel the conclusion that the significant environmental effects will be different or more severe than those previously identified and that “major revisions” to the PEIR are necessary. The Project is smaller—about 30 percent smaller—than what was contemplated by the PEIR. Would the Project have cumulatively considerable incremental effects? CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a). If not, the effect is not so significant as to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Id. If other projects by themselves would have significant cumulative impacts—something that is highly likely true for Sunset Crossroads—that “does not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(4).

City asserts that it relied on SCAQMD methodology in concluding that if the project-specific impacts exceed SCAQMD’s local and regional thresholds of significance, only then would the impact be cumulatively considerable. The City determined that the Project would comply with the Air Quality Management Plan, and would not exceed regional or local significance levels. AR 135-138, 224-226, 5861, 2760.
2533

Page 9 of 11 ends

City also argues that the Sunset Crossroads project is too uncertain to constitute a change in circumstances that would require assessing the cumulative impact of the Project and Sunset Crossroads.

To the extent that it is certain, the Sunset Crossroads project if approved would involve far more land, a much larger construction, and a general plan amendment, a specific plan creating 19 distinct planning areas, a parcel map and vesting tract map, and a pre-annexation and development agreement. It would no doubt have far more significant environmental impacts than the Project. If other projects by themselves would have significant cumulative impacts—which seems clearly the case here—that is not substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(4). Accordingly, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supported the City’s decision not to include cumulative impacts from the Project and Sunset Crossroads in the environmental documents for the Project and to prepare an addendum instead of a supplemental or subsequent EIR for the Project.

Substantial evidence supported the City’s project approval findings. Petitioner argues that there is no guarantee that the office and retail space that is to serve as a buffer between the existing housing and the warehouse element of the Project will be built in time to serve as a buffer and may never be built. City found the tentative map and design review consistent with the general plan and the specific plan amendment.
“Courts will defer to an agency's decision on consistency with its own plan unless, on the basis of evidence before the decision-making body, a "reasonable person" could not have found the project to be consistent.” Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the CEQA (CEB 2023) § 12.33 citing The Highway 68 Coalition v County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883, 896 (a determination of consistency between a project and a “general plan can be reversed only if it is based on evidence from which no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion”); Clover Valley Foundation v City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 239 (“no reasonable person would have determined that the project was inconsistent with the general plan”).

Notably, perfect conformity between a project and the general plan is not required, only compatibility 2534

Page 10 of 11 ends

with the general plan’s objectives and policies is needed. That determination is subject to a highly deferential standard of review. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish inconsistency. California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 638. The Court will not substitute its judgment for the City’s; the City’s determination “comes to this court with a strong presumption of regularity.” Ibid. This is because courts recognize that “the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity” and “the governmental agency must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan’s policies when applying them.” Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Assn. v. City of Modesto (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 9, 18-19.

City’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with the general plan and specific plan amendment is supported by substantial evidence. The City found that the Project will not unreasonably interfere with use and enjoyment of neighboring properties because the warehouse is to be built up against the I-10 freeway and the railroad away from residences; it will back up against Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center buildings away from residences to the south and east; and the retail and offices uses will provide screening/buffering from these residential uses “in the future.” AR 81 (emphasis added by Petitioner.) However, as argued by the City, there is nothing in its findings that required the retail and office elements (R&S District) would be built before or concurrently with the warehouse or would change the findings if the retail and office space were developed later. That an alternative condition could be proposed to address Petitioner’s screening concerns—requiring the landscaping—and was adopted supports the City’s finding. City could and did find that landscaping is a reasonable alternative for buffering to the construction of the office and retail space.

Project does not conflict with the noise element of the general plan. Petitioner argues that the Project approval authorizes heavy truck use on Sun Lakes Boulevard, which violates the noise element of the general plan because that street is not designated as a truck route. Program 4.A provides that other than traffic providing location-specific services and deliveries, construction and delivery trucks are limited to designated truck routes, which does not include Sun Lakes Boulevard. The City is within its discretion to interpret its general plan. Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Assn. v. City of Modesto (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 9, 18-19. Its determination is within that discretion.

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is granted in part. Petitioner to prepare a proposed Writ and to 2535

Page 11 of 11 ends

circulate it in the manner required by Rule 3.1312 of the California Rules of Court.

Notice to be given by Clerk.

Minute entry completed.
2536

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Historic Court House
4050 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501
Case Number: CVRI2201482
Case Name: PASS ACTION GROUP vs CITY OF BANNING
GABRIEL M.B. ROSS
396 HAYES STREET
San Francisco, CA 94102

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I certify that I am currently employed by the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, and that I am not a party to this action or proceeding. In my capacity, I am familiar with the practices and procedures used in connection with the mailing of correspondence. Such correspondence is deposited in the outgoing mail of the Superior Court. Outgoing mail is delivered to and mailed by the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, the same day in the ordinary course of business. I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing notice on this date, by depositing said copy as stated above.

Notices Mailed: Ruling on Submitted Matter-Petition for Writ of Mandate/Complaint for Injunctive Relief Dated: 03/15/2024 JASON B. GALKIN,
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
by:

E. Escobedo, Deputy Clerk
CW-CCM
(Rev. 08/24/17)
2537

Page 4 of 4 ends

Notice has been printed for the following Firm/Attorneys or Parties: CVRI2201482 ROSS, GABRIEL M.B.
396 HAYES STREET
San Francisco, CA 94102

GIOVINCO, GINETTA LORRAINE
350 S. Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

GOSNEY, PAIGE HOPKINS
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
2538
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. CVRI2201482

PROOF OF SERVICE
Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, et al.

Case No. CVRI2201482
Riverside County Superior Court
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is 396 Hayes Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

On April 12, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as:

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF

MANDATE
on the parties in this action as follows:

Ginetta L. Giovinco
Sarah E. Gerst

RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 626-8484
Fax: (213) 626-0078
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants:

CITY OF BANNING and CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF BANNING
Anthony J. Oliva
Paige H. Gosney
Benjamin N. Patterson

ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE

MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
2010 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 553-1313
Fax: (949) 553-8354
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Real Parties Interest:

SUN LAKES HIGHLAND, LLC and

CREATION EQUITY, LLC
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 12, 2024, at San Francisco, California.

Tuloa Sanchez
1769507.2
2539

Page 1 of 11 ends

APPEARANCES:

Page 2 of 11 ends

Page 3 of 11 ends

Petitioner contends that three council members made statements demonstrating bias. The Court finds that they have met their burden as to one of the three.

The following week, she further suggested contacting a reporter to correct the record and help her repair her damaged image. AR 17615.

Another added that traffic is being mitigated and that this would be growth, which Banning residents want. AR 19728.

Council member Sanchez moved for approval of the Project and council member Wallace seconded the motion. However, even with that context, their statements do not overcome the presumption that 2542

Page 4 of 11 ends

Page 5 of 11 ends

matter back to city council with instructions to reconsider the matter without the participation of the biased council member).

There was substantial evidence to support the Council’s decision not to prepare a supplemental EIR.

Page 6 of 11 ends

Where the agency finds “that impacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly 2545

Page 7 of 11 ends

from those described in the prior EIR, a further EIR is not required.” Id. at § 19.13 citing Bowman v.

Third, has new information that “was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete" become available? Id. at § 19.18 citing Cal.

Page 8 of 11 ends

Page 9 of 11 ends

City also argues that the Sunset Crossroads project is too uncertain to constitute a change in circumstances that would require assessing the cumulative impact of the Project and Sunset Crossroads.

Notably, perfect conformity between a project and the general plan is not required, only compatibility 2548

Page 10 of 11 ends

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is granted in part. Petitioner to prepare a proposed Writ and to 2549

Page 11 of 11 ends

circulate it in the manner required by Rule 3.1312 of the California Rules of Court.

Notice to be given by Clerk.

Minute entry completed.
2550

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Historic Court House
4050 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501
Case Number: CVRI2201482
Case Name: PASS ACTION GROUP vs CITY OF BANNING

GINETTA LORRAINE GIOVINCO
350 S. Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Notices Mailed: Ruling on Submitted Matter-Petition for Writ of Mandate/Complaint for Injunctive Relief Dated: 03/15/2024 JASON B. GALKIN,
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
by:

E. Escobedo, Deputy Clerk
CW-CCM
(Rev. 08/24/17)
2551

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Historic Court House
4050 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501
Case Number: CVRI2201482
Case Name: PASS ACTION GROUP vs CITY OF BANNING

PAIGE HOPKINS GOSNEY
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614

Notices Mailed: Ruling on Submitted Matter-Petition for Writ of Mandate/Complaint for Injunctive Relief Dated: 03/15/2024 JASON B. GALKIN,
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
by:

E. Escobedo, Deputy Clerk
CW-CCM
(Rev. 08/24/17)
2552

Notices Mailed: Ruling on Submitted Matter-Petition for Writ of Mandate/Complaint for Injunctive Relief Dated: 03/15/2024 JASON B. GALKIN,
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
by:

E. Escobedo, Deputy Clerk
CW-CCM
(Rev. 08/24/17)
2553

Page 4 of 4 ends

Notice has been printed for the following Firm/Attorneys or Parties: CVRI2201482 ROSS, GABRIEL M.B.
396 HAYES STREET
San Francisco, CA 94102

GIOVINCO, GINETTA LORRAINE
350 S. Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

GOSNEY, PAIGE HOPKINS
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614

2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008 & TENTATIVE 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 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).

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the City of Banning Planning Commission, to be held Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California, to consider a Notice of Exemption and Design Review No. 21-7008 and Tentative 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 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. The Community Development Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 - Infill Developments) and has prepared a Notice of Exemption (NOE).
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82794878682?pwd=SFUrMGNKQVlQRHMxaTFHMnJIYk92QT09 Meeting ID: 827 9487 8682
Passcode: 894694
One tap mobile: +16699009128,82794878682#
Dial in: +1 669 900 9128 US
Meeting ID: 827 9487 8682
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kfO5uo7yb To observe the live meeting through your personal computer, but not participate with video or oral comments, you may use your computer or smart phone to enter the following or click on the link:
https://banninglive.viebit.com
Information regarding the Notice of Exemption, Design Review and Tentative Map, can be obtained by contacting the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division at (951) 922-3125, or by going to the City of Banning website at https://banningca.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=60&Type=&ADID= All parties interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this item are invited to attend the hearing by accessing the videoconference or by sending their written comments by email to [email protected] or by mail to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Banning at 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California, 92220.

If you challenge any decision regarding the above proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission Recording Secretary prior to, at, or during the time the Planning Commission makes its recommendation on the proposal; or, you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the hearing body at, or prior to, the hearing (California Government Code, Section 65009).

BY ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA Adam Rush, M.A., AICP Dated: October 5, 2021
Community Development Director Publish: October 8, 2021 2615
10/5/2021 71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html http://71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html 1/4 Century Group Newspapers:

Fontana Herald News, Record Gazette,
Highland Community News,
Yucaipa/Calimesa News Mirror,
Redlands Community News
Phone:

Fax:
www.centurygroup.com

LEGAL ADS
CITY OF BANNING LEGALS/Accounts Payable
P.O. BOX 998
BANNING, CA 92220
(951)922-3117
Class Liner Ad #00185652 Summary:

Slug Line: 185652 PHN DR 21-7008
Net Cost $253.41
Prepaid Amount $0.00
Amount Due $253.41
Order Detail:

Publication Run Dates
4015 Banning Record Gazette 10/8/21 - 10/8/21
2616
10/5/2021 71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html http://71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html 2/4 2617
10/5/2021 71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html http://71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html 3/4 2618
10/5/2021 71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html http://71.177.253.90:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/C7987140AD3C5F105D228624642D980C/00000053.html 4/4 2619
§¨¦10

POTRERO BLVD
AUTUMN

GOLDEN SKY CT

GRANDVIEW AVE

EL DORADO CT

RIVIERA AVE

LORI WAY

AUGUSTA WAY

Y CLUB DR
I 10
I 10
I 10

SUN LAKES BLVD

RAMSEY ST

SUN LAKES

V LI LAGE DR

RAMSEY ST
SILVER
LAKES
AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD

APEX ST APEX AVE
LA
COSTA
DR

PINEHURST DR

OAK TREE AVE

CHERRY HILL AVE

TORREY PINES
RD

LA QUINTA DR

ROLLING HILLS AVE
SPRIN

MERION CT

MAIRFIELD CT
MARIAN

PALMER DR

SEMINOLE CT
MEA
D
O
W
LA
KE LN

RIVIERA AVE
N
ORTH

WOOD AVE

CORRAL CIR

MAIDSTONE
ST

JANAN CT

SHOAL CREEK ST

OAKHURST AVE
C

INDIAN WELLS RD

EVELYN DR

PEBBLE BEAC

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

BROOKLAWN DR

SALEM CIR

SPRING VIEW DR

MARLBORO WAY

LA QUINTA
DR
CASP

CLA RI CT

BEVERLY DR

SKYVIEW CIR
DAWN
WAY

TWIN HILLS DR

LINKS AVE
ESSEX
WAY

SHINNECOCK DR

CHRISTY DR
C

BROOKSIDE DR
BIG
SPRING
DR

OAKMONT DR
SA

NDPIPER ST

PLAIN FIELD DR

CHAPPAREL WAY

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

JOSHUA PALMER WAY

COUNTRY CLUB DR

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY OF BEAUMONT

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

CITY OF BANNING
µ 0 200 400 600 800
Feet

PROJECT VICINITY
6/18/2021
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510
Banning City Boundary
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164, A PROPOSED MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL/RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 37-ACRES OF A 47-ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AS AMENDED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SHELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MEASURING 619,959 SQUARE FEET, WHICH INCLUDES 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT PROPOSES SIX (6) RETAIL/RESTAURANT BUILDINGS TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET. THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WILL SUBDIVIDE THE 47-ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE (3) LOTS, FOR FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES. (APN: 419-140-057).

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the City of Banning Planning Commission, to be held Wednesday, December 1, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California, to consider Design Review No. 21-7008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, a proposed mixed-use industrial/retail development on approximately 37-acres of a 47-acre parcel within the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, as amended (the “Project”). The Project includes a shell industrial building measuring 619,959 square feet, which includes 10,000 square feet of office space. In addition, the Project proposes six (6) retail/restaurant buildings totaling 34,000 square feet. The tentative parcel map will subdivide the 47-acre parcel into three (3) lots, for financing and conveyance purposes, within the Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan Area.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the Community Development Department has considered the potential environmental impacts of the Project. Community Development Department staff has also reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the “Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5” project certified by the City Council on December 8, 2020 (Resolution 2020-141) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the Council on the same day, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the Community Development Department has determined that the Project and the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken do not involve substantial changes which will result in new significant environmental effects, and the Project does not involve new information of substantial importance which shows that the Project will have significant effects not discussed in the prior FEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the “Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5” project and the Project are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the MMRP. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations), a Notice of Determination (NOD) has a been prepared for the Commission to consider in conjunction with the Project.

To observe and participate in the online video portion of the meeting through your personal computer or device, follow this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82794878682?pwd=SFUrMGNKQVlQRHMxaTFHMnJIYk92QT09 Meeting ID: 827 9487 8682
Passcode: 894694
Dial in: +1 669 900 9128 US * Meeting ID: 827 9487 8682 To observe the live meeting through your personal computer, but not participate with video or oral comments, you may use your computer or smart phone to enter the following or click on the link:
https://banninglive.viebit.com
2631
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 Information regarding the CEQA Determination, Design Review and Tentative Map, can be obtained by contacting the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division at (951) 922-3125, or by going to the City of Banning website at https://banningca.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=60&Type=&ADID= All parties interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this item are invited to attend the hearing by accessing the videoconference or by sending their written comments by email to [email protected] or by mail to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Banning at 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California, 92220.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA Adam Rush, M.A., AICP Dated: November 16, 2021
Community Development Director Publish: November 19, 2021 2632
§¨¦10

POTRERO BLVD
AUTUMN

GOLDEN SKY CT

GRANDVIEW AVE

EL DORADO CT

RIVIERA AVE

LORI WAY

AUGUSTA WAY

Y CLUB DR
I 10
I 10
I 10

SUN LAKES BLVD

RAMSEY ST

SUN LAKES

V LI LAGE DR

RAMSEY ST
SILVER
LAKES
AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD

APEX ST APEX AVE
LA
COSTA
DR

PINEHURST DR

OAK TREE AVE

CHERRY HILL AVE

TORREY PINES
RD

LA QUINTA DR

ROLLING HILLS AVE
SPRIN

MERION CT

MAIRFIELD CT
MARIAN

PALMER DR

SEMINOLE CT
MEA
D
O
W
LA
KE LN

RIVIERA AVE
N
ORTH

WOOD AVE

CORRAL CIR

MAIDSTONE
ST

JANAN CT

SHOAL CREEK ST

OAKHURST AVE
C

INDIAN WELLS RD

EVELYN DR

PEBBLE BEAC

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

BROOKLAWN DR

SALEM CIR

SPRING VIEW DR

MARLBORO WAY

LA QUINTA
DR
CASP

CLA RI CT

BEVERLY DR

SKYVIEW CIR
DAWN
WAY

TWIN HILLS DR

LINKS AVE
ESSEX
WAY

SHINNECOCK DR

CHRISTY DR
C

BROOKSIDE DR
BIG
SPRING
DR

OAKMONT DR
SA

NDPIPER ST

PLAIN FIELD DR

CHAPPAREL WAY

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

JOSHUA PALMER WAY

COUNTRY CLUB DR

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY OF BEAUMONT

CITY OF BANNING
µ 0 200 400 600 800
Feet

PROJECT VICINITY
6/18/2021
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510
Banning City Boundary
2633
11/16/2021 47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html http://47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html 1/5 Century Group Newspapers:

Fontana Herald News, Record Gazette,
Highland Community News,
Yucaipa/Calimesa News Mirror,
Redlands Community News
Phone:

Fax:
www.centurygroup.com

LEGAL ADS
CITY OF BANNING LEGALS/Accounts Payable
P.O. BOX 998
BANNING, CA 92220
(951)922-3117
Class Liner Ad #00186523 Summary:

Slug Line: 186523 Design Review 21-7008
Net Cost $368.61
Prepaid Amount $0.00
Amount Due $368.61
Order Detail:

Publication Run Dates
4015 Banning Record Gazette 11/19/21 - 11/19/21
2634
11/16/2021 47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html http://47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html 2/5 2635
11/16/2021 47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html http://47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html 3/5 2636
11/16/2021 47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html http://47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html 4/5 2637
11/16/2021 47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html http://47.180.149.88:8090/AMPWeb/TemporaryItems/FEF78F6310EB8D0CDDB5E0E7D50C95F5/00000049.html 5/5 2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164 AND AN APPEAL BY THE PASS ACTION GROUP (PAG) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008, BOTH FOR THE BANNING POINT PROJECT A PROPOSED MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 37-ACRES OF A 47-ACRE PARCEL, WITHIN THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AS AMENDED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SHELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MEASURING 619,959 SQUARE FEET, WHICH INCLUDES 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT PROPOSES SIX (6) RETAIL AND RESTAURANT BUILDINGS, TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET. (APN: 419-140-057) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the City of Banning City Council, to be held Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. (or as soon thereafter) in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California. On May 6, 2024, a Riverside County Superior Court issued a Writ of Mandate in Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, et al., (1) ordering the City within 90 days to set aside and vacate all prior approvals of the Banning Point Project in which former City of Banning Councilmember Hamlin participated, including City Council Resolution 2022-14, Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Design Review 21-7008, and the Addendum and related CEQA findings for the Banning Point Project, and (2) instructing the City that any future hearing reconsidering approval of the Banning Point Project must be conducted without the participation of former Councilmember Hamlin. In accordance with the Writ, the City Council will consider (without the participation of former Councilmember Hamlin) (1) an application for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, allowing the subdivision of approximately forty-seven (47) gross acres of vacant land into three (3) parcels, and (2) an appeal by the Pass Action Group (PAG) of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review No. 21-7008, on December 1, 2021 (by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-16 by a 3-2-0 vote), together permitting the construction of a proposed mixed-use industrial and retail development on approximately 37-acres of a 47-acre parcel within the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, as amended (collectively. the “Project”).

The Project includes a shell industrial building measuring approximately 619,959 square feet, which includes approximately 10,000 square feet of office space. In addition, the Project proposes six (6) retail and restaurant buildings totaling approximately 34,000 square feet.

The Project has been reviewed in connection with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Community Development Department staff have reviewed the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the “Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5” project, certified by the City Council on December 8, 2020 (by adoption of Resolution 2020-141), and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, including the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), adopted by the City Council on the same day, to determine if the Project is within the scope of what was analyzed in that FEIR, which is now beyond challenge. Based on this review, an addendum/consistency checklist, entitled “Banning Point Addendum / Consistency Checklist to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Environmental Impact Report” (updated version dated February 10, 2022) (“Addendum”) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c).

The Addendum evaluated the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the FEIR to determine whether any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred. Community Development Department staff have determined that no further environmental review is required, including pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163, because (i) the Project will not have new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the FEIR; (ii) all applicable mitigation measures 2659
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 in the FEIR remain applicable to the Project and are imposed on the Project as a condition of approval; and (iii) the Project will not require any new mitigation measures, all as documented in the Addendum.

To observe the live meeting through your personal computer or smart phone enter the following link:
https://banninglive.viebit.com or view on the Banning Government Channel on Cable Television Information regarding Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Design Review No. 21-7008, and the CEQA Determination (Addendum) can be obtained by contacting the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division at (951) 922-3125, or by going to the City of Banning website at https://banningca.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=60&Type=&ADID=
All parties interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this item are invited to attend the public hearing or by sending their written comments by email to the Administrative City Clerk at [email protected] or by mail to the City Clerk at City of Banning at PO Box 998, Banning, CA 92220, or personally deliver to: 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220.

If you challenge any decision regarding the above Project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning at, or prior to, the public hearing (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65009(b)(3)).

BY ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA /s/ Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
Dated: June 11, 2024
Publish: June 28, 2024
2660
Record Gazette
218 N Murray St.

Proof of Publication
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
NPH 21-7008
State of California
County of Riverside ss.

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above matter. I am the principal cler1< of the printer and publisher of Record Gazette, a newspaper published in the English language in the City of Banning, County of Riverside, and adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the state of California by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, under the date October 14, 1966, Case No. 54737. That the notice, of which the annexed is a copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

June 28,2024

RECEIVED
JUL O 2 2024
City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
Executed on: 06/28/2024
At Banning ,CA
I ceritfy (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
NOTICE -OF PUBLIC - HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164

AND AN APPEAL BY THE

PASS ACTION GROUP
(PAG) OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONS AP.

PR AL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-70080 BOTH

FOR THE BANNING
POINT PROJECT A PROPOSED MIXED-USE 11'1- DUSTRIAL AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON AP.

PROJCIMA TEL Y
37-ACRES OF A '7-ACRE
PARCEi, WITHIN THE
SUN LAKl!S VILLAGE

NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN,
AS AMENDED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A

SHELL INDUSTRIAL

BUILDING MEASURING
619,1151 SQUARE FEET,
WHICH INCLUDES 10,000
SQUARE FEET OF OF•
FlCE SPACE. IN ADOI•

TION, THE PROJECT
PROPOSES SIX (6) RE·

TAIL AND RESTAURANT

BUILDINGS, TOTALING
34,000 SQUARE FEET.
(APN: 419-140-057)

NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN of a publlc hearing
before the City of Banning
City Council, to be held
Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at
5:00 p.m. (or as soon thereafter) In the Council Chambers, City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning,
Califomla. On May 6, 2024,
a Riverside County Superior Court Issued a Writ of
Mandate In P86S Action
Group v. City of Banning, et al., (1) ordenng Iha City
wtthln 90 days to set aside
and vacate au prior approv•
als ol the Banning Point
Project ln which former City
ol Banning Councilmember
Hamun participated, lnclud•
Ing City Council Resolution
2022·14, Tentative Parcel
Map No. 38164, Design Re•
view 21 •7008, and the Ad·
dendum and related CEQA
findings for the Banning
Point Project, and (2) In•
structing the City that any
future hearing reconsidering approval ol the Banning
Point Project must be con•
ducted without the particl•
patlon of former Council•
member Hamlin. Jn accordance with the Writ, the City Councn will consider {without the participation ol lormer Councilmember
Hamlin) (1) an appllcation
for approval of Tentative
Paree! Map No. 38164, al-
lowing the subdivision of
approximately forty-seven {47) gross acres ol vacant
land Into three (3) parcels,
and (2) an appeal by the
Pass Action Group (PAG)
ol the Planning Commis-
sions approval of Design
Review No. 21•7008, on
December 1, 2021 (by
adoption of Plannlng Commission Resolution No.
2021-16 by a 3-2-0 vote),
together permitting the construction of a proposed
mixed-use Industrial and retall development on approximate1y 37-acres of a 47-acre parcel within the
Sun Lakes Villega North
Specific Plan, as amended
(collectively. the Project).

The Project Includes a shell Industrial bulldlng measur- ing approximately 619,959 square feet, which Includes
approxlmately 10,000
square leet of office space.

In addition, the Project pro-
poses six (6) retell and restaurant buildings totaling approxlmately 34,000
square feet. The Project
has been reviewed In connection with the requirements cl the California En• vlronmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines. Community Development Departmenl staff
have reviewed the Final
Program Environmental Im-
pact Report (FEIR) for the
Sun Lakes Village North
Specific Plan Amendment
No. 5 project, certified by
the City Council on Decem-
ber 8, 2020 (by adoption ol
Resolution 2020-141), and
the Statement cl Overriding
Considerations, Including
the Mitigation, Monitoring,
and Reporting Program
(MMRP), adopted by the
City Council on the same
day, to determine II the Project Is within the scope ol what was analyzed In that
FEIR, which ls now beyond
challenge. Based on this review, an addendum/consistency checkllst, entitled Banning Point Addendum /
the Sun Lakes Village North
Specific Plan Amendment
No. 5 Environmental Impact
Report (updated version
dated February 10, 2022)
(Addendum) has been prepared pursuant to Publtc
Resources Code section
21166 and CECA Guide•
lines Sections 15162,
15164, and 15168(c). The
Addendum evaluated the
Projects potential environ•
mental effects In Ught ol
those effects previously dis-
closed In the FEIR to deter•
mine whether any of the
conditions described in
CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 celling tor subs&•
quent CEOA review have
occurred. Community De- velopment Department staff
have detannlned that no
further environmental re- view Is required, Including
pursuant to Public Re-
sources Code Section
21166, or CEOA Guldeliges
Sections 15162 or 15163,
because (I) the Project will
not have new or substantially more severe Impacts
than what was dlsclosed In
the FEIR; (ii) all applicable
mitigation measures In the
FEIR remain applicable to
the Project and are im•
posed on the Project as a
condition ol approval; and
(Ill) Iha Pro}ect will not require any new mitigation
measures, all as docu•
mented In the Addendum.

To observe the live meeting
through your personal computer or smart phone enter
the following link:
https:1/bannlnglive.vleblt.co
m or view on the Banning
Government Channel on
Cable Television lnfonnatlon regarding Tentative
Parcel Map No. 38164, De- sign Review No. 21•7008,
and the CEOA Determination (Addendum) can be
obtained by contacting the
City's Community Development Department, Planning Division at (951) 922-3125, or by going to the City of
Banning website at
https:1/bannlngca.gov/Ar•
chive.aspx?AMJ0=60& Type
=&ADID::i:. All parties Interested in speaking either in support ol or In opposition
to this item are invited to at•
tend the public hearing or
by sending their written
comments by email to the
Administrative City Clerk at
[email protected]
or by mall to the City Clerk
at City of Banning at PO
Box 998, Banning, CA
92220, or personally deliver
to: 99 E. Ramsey Street,
Banning, CA 92220. II you
challenge any decision regarding the above Project in court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues
you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or In
written correspondence delivered to the Administrative City Clerk ol the City ol Banning at, or prior 10, the
public hearing (Cal. Gov.

Code, 65009(b)(3)). BY
ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI·

RECTOR OF THE CITY OF

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
Isl Emery J. Papp, senior
Planner
Dated: June 11 , 2024 Publish: June 28, 2024
2661

AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Project: DR 21-7008 & TPM 38164
The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, the Development Project Coordinator of the City of Banning, California.

On the 25th day of June, 2024, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65091(a)(1) and (a)(4) and Banning Municipal Code Sections 17.68.020(B)(2) and (B)(3), I caused to be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the notice of public hearing attached hereto as Exhibit “B” to the owner of the real property that is the subject to the public hearing and to each property owner within 1000 feet of the subject real property, at the respective names and addresses listed in Exhibit “A,” as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll or the records of the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on the 25th day of June, 2024, at City of Banning, County of Riverside, State of California.

Sandra B. Calderon
Development Project Coordinator
City of Banning
2662
EXHIBIT “A”
(Attached)
2663
2664
SUSAN W. CASE, INC.
4000 BARRANCA PKWY #250
PHONE OR TEXT (949) 494-6105
IRVINE CA 92604
[email protected]
Certificate of Preparation
ADDRESS:

APNs:

Banning Point, Banning
419-140-057
This information was obtained through First American Core Logic, a data source utilizing the county assessor rolls and other available resources. This information is generally deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. Return of property addresses that are deemed undeliverable by the United States Postal Service, is therefore, a possibility.

Susan W. Case, Inc. is not responsible for providing further investigation of said labels.

Acceptance of this package acknowledges this fact.

Laura Emerson
Susan W. Case, Inc.
[email protected]
Date: 05/16/2024
The attached list includes the names and addresses of all property owners within 1000' from the exterior boundaries of the following addresses/APNs. 2665
419-072-031
Priscilla L Knights
5527 Wendy Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-090-001
Veronica Guadalupe Perez
260 Apex Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-090-002
Mgmt-iii Starlite
4900 Santa Anita Ave #2C
El Monte CA 91731
419-090-003
Arturo R Arroyo
280 Apex Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-090-004
B 10
1971 W 190th St #100
Torrance CA 90504
419-090-005
Cecc Properties
10815 Fairview Dr
Cherry Valley CA 92223
419-090-006
Leslie Frank Conn
999 Elm Ave
Beaumont CA 92223
419-090-007
B 10
1971 W 190th St #100
Torrance CA 90504
419-090-008
Lawrence L Slusser
43224 Ormsby Rd
Temecula CA 92592
419-090-009
B 10
1971 W 190th St #100
Torrance CA 90504
419-090-010
Slusser Trust Established 09/21/1989
43224 Ormsby Rd
Temecula CA 92592
419-090-011
Lawrence L Slusser
43224 Ormsby Rd
Temecula CA 92592
419-090-012
Kashi N Shaw
25967 Juanita St
Bryn Mawr CA 92318
419-102-012
Teresa Bagnara
5970 W Ramsey St
Banning CA 92220
419-102-013
Bagnara Trust Dtd 8/11/20
39712 Brookside Ave
Cherry Valley CA 92223
419-112-001
Bagnara Trust Dtd 8/11/20
39712 Brookside Ave
Cherry Valley CA 92223
419-112-019
Palmmarket.com Inc
10685 Cayenne Way
Fontana CA 92337
419-112-020
Kc Dev Genesis
2000 16th St
Denver CO 80202
419-120-009
Prop Tlc
77 El Duna Ct
Palm Desert CA 92211
419-120-018
City Of Banning
P O Box 998
Banning CA 92220
419-120-019
Palmmarket.com Inc
10685 Cayenne Way
Fontana CA 92337
419-120-021
Eduardo Perez Cruz
6261 Joshua Palmer Way
Banning CA 92220
419-120-023
Corners Inc
27290 Scott Rd
Menifee CA 92584
419-120-024
Corners Inc
P O Box 285
Houston TX 77001
419-120-025
Palmmarket.com Inc
10685 Cayenne Way
Fontana CA 92337
419-120-027
Banning Sagemont
1713 Spyglass Ct
Beaumont CA 92223
419-131-001
Highland Springs Jp
4 Executive Cir #250
Irvine CA 92614
419-131-003
Khan Mac Umer Revocable Trust Dtd
18820 Floorwood Ave
Torrance CA 90250
419-131-004
Reyes Belen Duran
15485 Caballo Rd
Moreno Valley CA 92555
419-131-005
Hsiuchu Chen Hou
9453 Canyon Oaks Ct
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
2666
419-131-006
Robert Eric Jimenez
6881 Wyndham Hill Pl
Riverside CA 92509
419-131-007
Robert Eric Jimenez
7951 Arlington Ave
Riverside CA 92503
419-131-008
Jon L Kesner
261 Apex Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-131-009
Jctp
2435 W Westward Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-132-001
Prop Tlc
77 El Duna Ct
Palm Desert CA 92211
419-132-002
Marilyn J Legerat
5571 Mountainview Ave
Yorba Linda CA 92886
419-132-003
Group Inv Stella
1678 Calle Solejar
Redlands CA 92373
419-132-004
Victor Manuel Ortega
5778 Joshua Palmer Way
Banning CA 92220
419-132-005
Madhouse Investments
Po Box 30067
Stockton CA 95213
419-132-006
Helmers Rosalie M Rev Trust
14396 Summer Glen Grove
Colorado Springs CO 80921
419-140-005
Southern Pacific Transportation Co
1700 Farnam St
Omaha NE 68102
419-140-016
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-140-018
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-140-025
Sun Lakes Inv
41 E Foothill Blvd #200
Arcadia CA 91006
419-140-026
U S Bank Natl Assn
Po Box 460169
Houston TX 77056
419-140-027
Prop Mac5
315 Via Montanera
Anaheim CA 92807
419-140-028
Yousef Sobhy G & Marsha B
3675 Torito Cir
Palm Springs CA 92264
419-140-029
Sun Lakes Inv
41 E Foothill Blvd #200
Arcadia CA 91006
419-140-030
Albertsons Inc
250 E Parkcenter Blvd
Boise ID 83706
419-140-031
Lakes Inv Sun
4105 E Foothill Blvd #200
Arcadia CA 91006
419-140-032
Thrifty Payless Inc
4704 Yerba Santa Dr
San Diego CA 92115
419-140-033
Lakes Inv Sun
41 E Foothill Blvd #200
Arcadia CA 91006
419-140-041
Marinita-Sage Rancho
3835 Birch St
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-140-053
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-140-054
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-140-055
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-140-056
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-140-057
Lakes Highland Sun
1200 N 52 Nd St
Phoenix AZ 85008
419-140-059
Epic Management
1615 Orange Tree Ln
Redlands CA 92374
419-140-062
Banning Inv Mld
Po Box 71970
Phoenix AZ 85050
2667
419-140-063
Banning Inv Mld
Po Box 71970
Phoenix AZ 85050
419-140-064
Marinita-Sage Rancho
3835 Birch St
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-140-065
Hyrosen Prop Inc
1887 Business Center Dr
San Bernardino CA 92408
419-260-023
Southern Pacific Transportation Co
1700 Farnam St S
Omaha NE 68102
419-260-067
EPC Highland Springs LLC
4500 Dorr St
Toledo OH 43615
419-260-074
State of California
195 Highland Springs Ave
Beaumont CA 92223
419-260-078
Beaumont Brixton
120 S Sierra Ave
Solana Beach CA 92075
419-260-079
Beaumont Brixton
120 S Sierra Ave
Solana Beach CA 92075
419-260-087
Thrifty Payless Inc
PO Box 3165
Harrisburg PA 17105
419-290-002
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-290-003
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-290-005
Lakeside Community Assn
850 Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-290-013
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-290-014
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-290-022
Security Trust Co
19 Corporate Plaza
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-291-041
Lindquist Patrice Revocable Trust Est
614 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-291-046
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-291-050
Carol J Meagher
662 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-291-051
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-292-001
Blum-reynolds Family Trust 4/7/09
507 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-002
Eugene M Hill
515 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-003
Shirley Rivera
Po Box 802714
Santa Clarita CA 91380
419-292-004
Beres Jolan Revocable Living Trust
531 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-005
Scott Rebecca Sue Living Trust Dtd
2453 Birdie Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-006
Jeffreys Laurel E Revocable Living
545 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-007
Dacus Family Trust Dtd 02/11/88
Po Box 1221
Banning CA 92220
419-292-008
Thomas N Vacar
724 Del Ganado Rd
San Rafael CA 94903
419-292-009
Parish Carl & Chrysanthe Trust Dtd
573 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-010
Corrigan James Patrick Revocable
579 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-011
Jacob K Charlot
587 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
2668
419-292-012
Robert A Glaubig
595 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-013
Presley Of Southern Calif
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-292-014
Loei401
14071 Peyton Dr #155
Chino Hills CA 91709
419-292-015
Gojaniuk Mary H Revocable Trust
588 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-016
George H Myers
13159 San Felipe
La Mirada CA 90638
419-292-017
Freeman Lynne L Living Trust
572 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-018
Betty J Batson
564 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-019
Nancy Samaan
3879 Mira Arena
Palm Springs CA 92262
419-292-020
Chao Family Trust 12/29/2022
6011 Warwick Hills Way
Banning CA 92220
419-292-021
Dorothy J Buterbaugh
540 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-022
Joann A Slivkoff
532 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-023
Severson Socorro Living Trust Dtd
526 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-024
John P Albade
518 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-025
Juana Cota Barrios
510 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-026
Marquez Ana Maria Revocable Living
555 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-027
Hernandez Julie Judith Revocable
33303 Wallace Way
Yucaipa CA 92399
419-292-028
Benito Sanchez Plata
571 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-029
Patricia Ann Wholley
581 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-030
Rodney Jones
587 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-031
Karla R Joseph
Po Box 2787
Mcdonough GA 30253
419-292-032
Walter Steve Harper
611 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-033
Gordon Chaegois
14728 Pipeline Ave #G
Chino Hills CA 91709
419-292-034
Phillips Beverly Ruth Living Trust
Po Box 485
Beaumont CA 92223
419-292-035
Traci Ann Mallard
637 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-038
Cynthia Ann White-piper
646 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-039
Barbara L Miller
638 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-040
Bennett Carol A Trust Dated 03/11/19
630 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-041
Michalec Patricia A Living Trust
620 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-042
Arturo H Varela
6054 Mairfield Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-043
Carlos Spinelli
6034 Mairfield Ct
Banning CA 92220
2669
419-292-044
Daniel L Muckenthaler
6014 Mairfield Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-045
Irene M Leone
6015 Mairfield Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-046
Lundgren Family Trust Dtd 7/7/1993
18220 25th Dr
Bothell WA 98012
419-292-047
Carlton Fleming
6055 Mairfield Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-048
Adriana Maria Mercado
6075 Mairfield Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-049
Presley Of Southern Calif
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-292-050
Presley Of Southern Calif
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-292-051
Oei K A L M Living Trust Dated
2412 Paseo Del Palacio
Chino Hills CA 91709
419-292-052
Aida L Hadid
521 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-053
Traci Sue Jones
529 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-054
Steven H Kassman
537 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-055
Sherry Ferraro
543 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-292-056
Presley Of Southern Calif
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-292-057
Shirley R Orlikoff
1748 Street Ridgeview
Palm Springs CA 92264
419-292-058
Beringson Sharon L Trust
5244 Long Cove Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-059
Kimberly Ann Smith
6040 Merion Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-060
Phyllis C Davis
6020 Merion Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-061
Irene Loughlin
6019 Merion Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-062
Jon C Jeffreys
755 Oro Leaf St
Beaumont CA 92223
419-292-063
Harry G Nead
6059 Merion Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-292-064
Steven Craig Parker
6072 St Andrews Way
Banning CA 92220
419-292-065
Elizabeth Rodriguez
6048 St Andrews Way
Banning CA 92220
419-292-066
Carol Y Saule
6024 St Andrews Way
Banning CA 92220
419-292-067
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-293-001
Coffin Daniel F Revocable Living Tr
480 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-002
Lenz Frank Melchoir Revocable Living
466 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-003
Marva Jones
454 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-004
Mary Braudaway
432 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-005
Thelma B Willingham
420 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-006
Kuwano Suzanne C Family Trust Dtd
3336 Delaware Ave
Santa Monica CA 90404
2670
419-293-007
Hunt Living Trust Dated 7/20/22
6111 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-008
Beverly Snider
6127 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-009
Elizabeth Ann Coll
6141 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-010
Martha E Kendrick
6155 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-011
William T Dunn
6171 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-012
James Nicholl
6187 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-013
Mccloud William Living Trust
405 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-014
Lingren Louis Living Trust Dtd
415 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-015
Xiao Dong
2 Liquid Amber
Irvine CA 92620
419-293-016
Helen K Hori
435 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-017
Janice A Yellon
120 Velwood Dr
Redlands CA 92374
419-293-018
Miller James W Revocable Living
455 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-019
Kelly Thomas Mcclelland
4932 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-020
Meines Barbara Family Rev Trust Dtd
475 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-021
Henry Patrick Victorero
485 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-022
Joanne Crow Oliver
495 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-023
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-293-024
Regina M Harrison
6175 St Andrews Way
Banning CA 92220
419-293-025
Barbara C Docouto
6157 St Andrews Way
Banning CA 92220
419-293-026
Elizabeth Alcala Bennett
6139 St Andrews Way
Banning CA 92220
419-293-027
Kenneth C Clark
5272 Breckenridge Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-028
David P Sheehan
460 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-029
Stephen Bacher
450 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-030
Robert Mitchell Jackson
440 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-031
Scott James Angell
430 La Costa Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-032
Johnson Janis K Living Trust
6170 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-033
Coralynn Bernier
6156 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-034
Pete Steve Martinez
6140 Wingfoot Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-293-035
Mahoney Family Revocable Living
2001 Sheehan Cir
Banning CA 92220
419-293-036
Kington Ronald Edward Living Trust
9222 Walker St
Cypress CA 90630
2671
419-293-037
Steve L Smith
467 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-038
Kern Marcella M 2003 Trust Dated
481 La Quinta Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-293-039
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-300-001
Kathleen E Rios
5609 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-002
Larry A Crawford
5621 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-003
Stephen J Lehtonen
5633 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-004
Mattegit Family Trust Dtd 4/6/2000
5647 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-005
Heins Family Trust Dtd 7/20/23
5659 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-006
Carolyn Y Day
5671 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-007
Deissler-schmidt Gloria Family Trust
2324 Hyacinth St
San Bernardino CA 92407
419-300-008
Conroy Reynolds
5701 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-009
John C Delongchamp
5723 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-010
Mary A Wilson
5747 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-011
Wiegand John J Living Trust 9/9/21
5760 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-012
Joseph Morgan Williams
5787 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-013
William Jeff Kallal
431 E Merrimac St
Upland CA 91784
419-300-014
Theresa E Walton
5831 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-015
Ricardo M Aisenberg
6 Locksley Ave #8-H
San Francisco CA 94122
419-300-016
Garbino Margaret Trust Dated
5871 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-017
Herr William L & Marilyn E Family
5891 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-018
Susan E Pottle
5913 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-019
J & J Inv
769 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-020
Steward Family 2021 Trust Utd
5953 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-021
Jane L Getchell
5973 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-022
Ramona Mccarty
5993 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-023
Martha Imelda Aguirre
409 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-024
Nancy A Hohn
429 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-025
Gonzalez Jose & Elva Trust Dated
449 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-026
Lamar Hoke
469 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-027
Terry Lynn Maynard
489 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
2672
419-300-028
Grimes Family Trust Dtd 7/23/21
509 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-029
Moreno Michael & Dawna Trust
527 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-030
David R Deal
545 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-031
John F Brobst
563 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-032
Steven Mestas
581 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-033
Swem Family Revocable Trust Dtd
624 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-300-034
Brasch John F Trust
131 Waterview St
Playa Del Rey CA 90293
419-300-035
Leonardo Kostiuk
5815 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-036
Robert D Cochran
5839 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-037
Michael R Laichareonsup
5871 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-038
Olmsted Ruth C Trust Dtd 6/3/1987
Po Box 715
Beaumont CA 92223
419-300-039
Dills Bruce Lynn & Shirley Jean
5913 W Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-040
Alfredo L Santos
5935 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-041
Charles F Strang
4175 Hillside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-042
James T Cousar
5981 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-043
Edward A Morrison
5978 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-044
Donald Zelmer
5958 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-045
Horace W Campbell
5934 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-046
Roderick S Tracey
5912 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-047
Steve A Vos
15122 Runnymede St
Van Nuys CA 91405
419-300-048
Gordon Gates
5868 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-049
Bailey Godfrey Separate Property Trust
18032 Lemon Dr
Yorba Linda CA 92886
419-300-050
Hook Leon Charles Revocable Trust
5813 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-051
Douglas J Thorne
5835 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-052
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
23726 Birtcher Dr
El Toro CA 92630
419-300-053
Marsha Ann Ordorica
1916 W 161st St
Gardena CA 90247
419-300-054
Kymm Ann Terlau
5871 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-055
Morck Florence E Living Trust
5891 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-056
Rebecca De Keyser
5911 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-057
Nancy L Sheets
5933 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
2673
419-300-058
George J Obrien
5955 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-059
Allen D Jaszcar
5977 Brookside Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-060
Bradley Robert Nolte
10097 Zapata Ave
San Diego CA 92126
419-300-061
Bliss Family Trust Dated 09/21/2023
5954 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-062
Evon E Montague
5869 Indian Canyon
Banning CA 92220
419-300-063
Bradley Robert Nolte
10097 Zapata Ave
San Diego CA 92126
419-300-064
Barbara Taylor
5890 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-065
Gary Warren Kushiner
5870 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-066
Hix Family Revocable Living Trust Dtd
5025 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-067
Amos Kaba Sloan
5830 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-068
David Ramirez
5810 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-069
Clarissa A Costell
5788 Oakmont Pl
Banning CA 92220
419-300-070
Jones Rhonda Irene Revocable Trust
5756 Oakmont Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-300-071
Johnson Lyn Reynolds
5717 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-072
Jeffrey R Picking
5735 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-073
Jackson Stanley & Jennifer Ventigan
5753 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-074
Rita Poole
5769 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-075
Close Petrona Estate Of
800 S Redlands Ave
Perris CA 92570
419-300-076
Kenneth Davis
5832 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-077
Cheryl R Finlay
5818 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-078
Divina Vida
1700 S Milliken Ave
Ontario CA 91761
419-300-079
Charles L Cha
5772 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-080
Thomas T S Kuo
5752 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-081
Lee Alan Peterson
5732 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-082
Phyllis E Wobken
5712 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-083
John H Schoonover
5696 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-084
John Julian Wall
5672 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-085
Monika Louscher
5656 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-086
Neal Bailey
5640 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-300-087
Yong Cha Kennedy
1697 Fairway Oaks Ave
Banning CA 92220
2674
419-300-088
Jackson Valda N Family Trust Dtd
742 Diamante Ct
San Jacinto CA 92583
419-310-001
Louis E Wilson
607 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-002
Duarte Gildardo & Francisca Duarte
623 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-003
Andrews Marguerite L Revocable
5411 Breckenridge Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-310-004
Karen C Hays
651 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-005
Charles Walter Smith
663 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-006
Curtis Raymond H Living Trust Dtd
677 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-007
Mary Gallegos
17439 Santa Maria St
Fountain Valley CA 92708
419-310-008
Charles T Kudra
291 Teasdale St
Thousand Oaks CA 91360
419-310-025
Castro Joseph R Trust Dtd 07/26/1990
1947 W 153rd
Gardena CA 90247
419-310-026
Barbara M Stanley
712 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-027
Lewis C Kyle
692 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-028
Johnson Norma S Revocable Trust
680 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-029
David J Mayfield
668 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-030
Joseph R Castro
1947 W 153rd St
Gardena CA 95248
419-310-031
John J Quinlan
2715 N Longhurst St
Orange CA 92867
419-310-032
Stella Zaremba
630 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-033
Rodgers Catherine Trust Dated 02-11-
612 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-034
Hinshaw Sandra L Living Trust Dated
16128 Squaw Flat Rd
Sisters OR 97759
419-310-035
Linda S Chaplin
623 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-036
Lavalana Ree Cook
637 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-037
Adalberto Bolano
649 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-038
Skasick Family Revocable Trust Dtd
663 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-039
Patricia Tiel
679 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-040
Herman Family Trust Dtd 09/29/82
693 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-041
Melvin D Foster
709 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-055
Susan Graves
706 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-056
Bonnie Jo Aulwes
692 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-057
Leon S Ingram
28802 Shady Pl
Laguna Beach CA 92651
419-310-058
Janis K Johnson
1391 Sea Pines Dr
Banning CA 92220
2675
419-310-059
Lakes Country Club Homeowners
658 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-060
Bonnie M Devine
646 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-061
Karl W Morris
636 Torrey Pines Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-310-062
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
23726 Birtcher Dr
El Toro CA 92630
419-320-010
Mary J Gonzalez
5448 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-011
Maria Elena Vindolio Abedes
5466 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-012
Alger Herbert Johns
5480 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-013
Brian Joseph Shortridge
5494 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-014
Marvin L & Shirley G. Dated 1/6 / 2006
5508 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-015
Leo G Gagnon
5522 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-016
Lin Family Revocable Living Trust
5536 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-017
Mary E Herchberger
5550 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-018
Carole Marie Butcher
5564 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-019
Michael Steven Sullivan
536 Fairway Dr
Redlands CA 92373
419-320-020
Prophet Laverne Living Trust Dated
5592 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-021
Tri Thanh Ngo
477 S Maidstone St
Banning CA 92220
419-320-022
Robert W Collins
447 S Maidstone St
Banning CA 92220
419-320-023
David G Mora
436 S Maidstone St
Banning CA 92220
419-320-024
Robinson Sheryl Revocable Living
466 S Maidstone St
Banning CA 92220
419-320-025
Vivian C Buchanan
5549 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-026
Tierney Family Trust Dated 7/8/2020
5531 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-027
Pogue Family Trust 10/13/2023
5515 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-028
Smith Michael Robert Living Trust
5501 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-029
Perez George A & Gay Anne Living
481 S Seminole Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-320-030
Jo Anne Chung
1900 Pacific Coast Hwy #10
Huntington Beach CA 92648
419-320-031
Cecil R Reos
5498 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-032
Corinne J Oreilly
5484 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-033
Scott John Charles Sr & Betty Fay
5470 W Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-034
Cunnigan Family Living Trust Dtd
12609 S Halo Dr
Compton CA 90221
419-320-035
Kenneth Coleman
5440 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
2676
419-320-036
Richard Dennis Peterson
490 S Seminole Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-320-037
Diefendorf Family Trust Dated
518 S Seminole Ct
Banning CA 92220
419-320-038
Olmsted Ruth C Trust Dtd 6/3/1987
Po Box 715
Beaumont CA 92223
419-320-039
Patricia Portillo
5465 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-040
Gilbert Waring Waring
5451 W Pinehurst Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-320-069
Nancy A Ford
5589 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-070
John F Randel
5575 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-071
Lauradee Carter
25941 Via Pera
Mission Viejo CA 92691
419-320-072
Labrado Family Revocable Living
5547 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-073
Arons Shelly Trust Dated 5/14/2020
5533 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-074
Traniece Lewis
5519 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-075
Arthur G Line
5505 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-076
Bonnie B Meltvedt
5491 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-077
Lawrence O Foy
5477 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-078
Ted D Linder
5463 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-079
Gloria Rosemary Oconnor
5449 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-080
Marguerite A Cross
5435 Riviera Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-320-089
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
P O Box 19672
Irvine CA 92713
419-370-009
Charles R Nagy
569 Twin Hills Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-370-010
Anthony Hake
557 Twin Hills Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-370-011
Christian R Haynie
5049 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-012
Richard E Norton
5037 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-013
Hix Family Revocable Living Trust Dtd
5025 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-014
Hinckley G Bradford Trust 9/15/05
5013 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-032
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-370-033
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-370-034
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-370-037
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
19 Corporate Plz
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-370-041
Helga W Sieg
5062 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-042
Janu Family Trust Dated 4/19/2005
524 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
2677
419-370-043
Bruce Louis Brown
512 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-044
Helga W Sieg
5062 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-045
Fratus Family Trust Dtd 10/31/94
488 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-046
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 S Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-370-047
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
850 Country Club Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-370-048
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
5062 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-049
Ronald E Krogh
553 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-050
Daniel Biddle
541 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-051
David P Madon
529 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-052
Ronald A Biggs
517 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-053
John Mursa
505 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-054
Margaret Anne Bundschuh
493 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-370-055
Alan E Ronska
43980 Mahlon Vail Rd #2403
Temecula CA 92592
419-370-056
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
5062 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-057
Presley Of Southern California
4490 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
419-370-073
Fisher Michelle Lynn Revocable Living
5028 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-074
Pauley Chris Family Revocable Living
5016 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-075
Constantino B Albera
5004 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-076
James Kyongjin Kim
4992 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-370-077
Harry W Finigan
4980 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-001
Beverly R Jones
469 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-002
Paul Nissen
453 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-003
Anthony Lyndell Jones
801 Rainier Ave
Renton WA 98057
419-400-004
Falat Family Trust Dated 7/12/22
437 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-005
James H Crosby
429 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-006
Joan E Burke
769 Indian Wells Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-400-007
Matthis Family Trust Dtd 1/12/21
413 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-008
Jon L Petrie
1278 Pine Valley Rd
Banning CA 92220
419-400-009
Catherine Jane Wilson
3265 San Amadeo #B
Laguna Woods CA 92637
419-400-010
Mason Dolph & Karla Family
299 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
2678
419-400-011
Maria Marta Lucich
293 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-012
Shih Anyu & Susan Chou Family Trust
5914 Myrtle Beach Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-013
William Ngo Sy
281 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-014
Steven Cooke
275 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-015
Jamie Jo Taylor
269 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-016
Gerald F Russes
386 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-017
Lyla Gail Wolden
398 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-018
Raymond A Paquette
410 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-019
Manley James A & Marsha K Trust
422 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-020
C K Pappadato
434 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-021
Stratton Paul Joseph & Anna Luisa
446 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-022
Hendrik L Vanvliet
5016 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-023
Gregg Trust Dated 2/23/2004
470 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-024
Myrna E Treacy
482 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-025
Simpson George & Erin Trust Dated
494 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-026
Anthony Kent Hayworth
506 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-027
Mildred L Hunter
518 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-028
Leon P Noel
530 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-029
Sax Revocable Living Trust Excuted
542 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-030
Stawry E Kary
554 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-031
Giordano Janet Living Trust 7/27/16
566 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-032
Karen Rae Whempner
578 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-033
Richard N Peck
590 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-034
Hannsjuergen H Neugebauer
602 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-035
John A Rawle
614 N0rthwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-036
Michael B Jordan
591 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-037
Bertha Ann Serafin
579 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-038
Jose A Campuzano
567 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-039
Valerie Crithfield
555 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-040
Delmas Owen Tackett
543 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
2679
419-400-041
Jerry Joe Bowman
531 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-042
Carl Henry Kalb
519 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-043
Randy Lauder
507 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-044
James A Jorgenson
495 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-045
David Contreras
Po Box 579
Palm Springs CA 92263
419-400-046
Joan Marie Decker
471 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-047
Elpidio T Gabriel
459 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-048
Kenneth C Anderson
447 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-049
Ogbonne Ikpa
13862 San Antonio Ave
Chino CA 91710
419-400-050
Walter L Penniman
423 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-051
Gerald J Staheli
411 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-052
Bewick Margarett Living Trust Dtd
399 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-053
Martha Jane Brown
458 W Virginia Ave
Glendora CA 91741
419-400-054
Anita Taylor
375 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-055
Ware Donna Marie Revocable Living
363 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-056
Gloria E Runnels
351 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-057
Wesley America Mary Living Trust
339 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-058
Darleen Inez Moxon
327 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-059
Modesto G Gonzalez
315 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-060
Sumners Jackie Lee Trust
301 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-061
Ralph D Cervantes
350 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-062
Cindy Lou Medley
362 Northwood Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-400-063
Karina C Boontherntup
1425 Alpine Ave
Beaumont CA 92223
419-400-064
Richard D Kern
268 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-065
Beverly Guenin
274 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-066
Gamal Francis
280 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-067
Richard A Spaulding
286 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-068
John Shain Haldeman
292 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-069
Spinden Alfred & Carol Revocable
298 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-070
Brown Revocable Living Trust Dated
304 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
2680
419-400-071
Betty L Starr
322 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-072
Strona Barbara J Family Revocable
340 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-073
Gregory Scott Nicholson
356 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-074
Sam M Sardo
3021 Las Brisas Trl
Jamul CA 91935
419-400-075
Pitt Family Trust Dtd 1/22/2008
378 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-076
David R Allred
384 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-077
Gwendolyn Palmore
392 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-078
Neal A Berry
476 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-079
Mitchell Family Trust Dtd 07/03/19
13668 Oak Mountain Dr
Yucaipa CA 92399
419-400-080
Cheryl D Dobrzynski
452 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-081
Anderson Janet S Family Trust 6/11/01
440 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-082
Cianchetti Linda Aquaro Revocable
428 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-083
Haffer Family Trust Dated 5/15/2019
416 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-084
Kadolph Family Revocable Trust
404 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-085
George H Rumph
392 Sandpiper St
Banning CA 92220
419-400-086
Kobes Family Revocable Living Trust
1601 Fairway Oaks
Banning CA 92220
419-400-087
Enrique B Reyes
387 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-088
Dorothy Ann Rumph
2314 Wailea Beach Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-400-089
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
5062 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
419-410-001
Marilyn A Garn
398 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-002
James P Huckabey
404 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-003
Helen Joara Minor
410 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-004
Wright Revocable Living Trust Dtd
416 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-045
Peter J Barrett
399 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-046
Shova William H & Barbara A Rev Liv
405 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-047
Gerald Darwin Garver
411 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-048
Dennis E Field
417 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-049
Yolanda Josephine Salas
423 Brooklawn Dr
Banning CA 92220
419-410-066
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners
5062 Rolling Hills Ave
Banning CA 92220
440-010-012
Katherine Thurston
626 Pine Valley Rd
Banning CA 92220
2681
440-010-013
Sandra Lee Chaffin
612 Pine Valley Rd
Banning CA 92220
440-010-014
Beverly Simmons
598 Pine Valley Rd
Banning CA 92220
440-010-015
Ahe Susan Cain Von Der
1945 Port Weybridge Pl
Newport Beach CA 92660
440-010-016
Ogbonne Ikpa
13862 San Antonio Ave
Chino CA 91710
440-010-017
Sherman G Elrod
564 Pine Valley Rd
Banning CA 92220
440-010-018
Dean Smith
552 Pine Valley Rd
Banning CA 92220
440-010-019
Ulysses A Jesus
540 Pine Valley Rd
Banning CA 92220
Josh Zemon
Creation Equity
1200 N. 52nd St.

Phoenix, AZ 85008
Josh Zemon
Creation Equity
1280 E. Levee St.

Dallas, TX 75207
City of Banning
Public Works
Department
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning
Electric Department
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning
Fire Department
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
2682
EXHIBIT “B”
(Attached)
2683
City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164 AND AN APPEAL BY THE PASS ACTION GROUP (PAG) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008, BOTH FOR THE BANNING POINT PROJECT A PROPOSED MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 37-ACRES OF A 47-ACRE PARCEL, WITHIN THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AS AMENDED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SHELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MEASURING 619,959 SQUARE FEET, WHICH INCLUDES 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT PROPOSES SIX (6) RETAIL AND RESTAURANT BUILDINGS, TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET. (APN: 419-140-057) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the City of Banning City Council, to be held Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. (or as soon thereafter) in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California. On May 6, 2024, a Riverside County Superior Court issued a Writ of Mandate in Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, et al., (1) ordering the City within 90 days to set aside and vacate all prior approvals of the Banning Point Project in which former City of Banning Councilmember Hamlin participated, including City Council Resolution 2022-14, Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Design Review 21-7008, and the Addendum and related CEQA findings for the Banning Point Project, and (2) instructing the City that any future hearing reconsidering approval of the Banning Point Project must be conducted without the participation of former Councilmember Hamlin. In accordance with the Writ, the City Council will consider (without the participation of former Councilmember Hamlin) (1) an application for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, allowing the subdivision of approximately forty-seven (47) gross acres of vacant land into three (3) parcels, and (2) an appeal by the Pass Action Group (PAG) of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review No. 21-7008, on December 1, 2021 (by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-16 by a 3-2-0 vote), together permitting the construction of a proposed mixed-use industrial and retail development on approximately 37-acres of a 47-acre parcel within the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, as amended (collectively. the “Project”).

The Addendum evaluated the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the FEIR to determine whether any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred. Community Development Department staff have determined that no further environmental review is required, including pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163, because (i) the Project will not have new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the FEIR; (ii) all applicable mitigation measures 2684
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 in the FEIR remain applicable to the Project and are imposed on the Project as a condition of approval; and (iii) the Project will not require any new mitigation measures, all as documented in the Addendum.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA /s/ Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
Dated: June 11, 2024
Publish: June 28, 2024
2685
§¨¦10

POTRERO BLVD
AUTUMN

GOLDEN SKY CT

GRANDVIEW AVE

EL DORADO CT

RIVIERA AVE

LORI WAY

AUGUSTA WAY

Y CLUB DR
I 10
I 10
I 10

SUN LAKES BLVD

RAMSEY ST

SUN LAKES

V LI LAGE DR

RAMSEY ST
SILVER
LAKES
AVE

HIGHLAND HOME RD

APEX ST APEX AVE
LA
COSTA
DR

PINEHURST DR

OAK TREE AVE

CHERRY HILL AVE

TORREY PINES
RD

LA QUINTA DR

ROLLING HILLS AVE
SPRIN

MERION CT

MAIRFIELD CT
MARIAN

PALMER DR

SEMINOLE CT
MEA
D
O
W
LA
KE LN

RIVIERA AVE
N
ORTH

WOOD AVE

CORRAL CIR

MAIDSTONE
ST

JANAN CT

SHOAL CREEK ST

OAKHURST AVE
C

INDIAN WELLS RD

EVELYN DR

PEBBLE BEAC

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

BROOKLAWN DR

SALEM CIR

SPRING VIEW DR

MARLBORO WAY

LA QUINTA
DR
CASP

CLA RI CT

BEVERLY DR

SKYVIEW CIR
DAWN
WAY

TWIN HILLS DR

LINKS AVE
ESSEX
WAY

SHINNECOCK DR

CHRISTY DR
C

BROOKSIDE DR
BIG
SPRING
DR

OAKMONT DR
SA

NDPIPER ST

PLAIN FIELD DR

CHAPPAREL WAY

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

JOSHUA PALMER WAY

COUNTRY CLUB DR

PROJECT

LOCATION

CITY OF BEAUMONT

CITY OF BANNING
µ 0 200 400 600 800
Feet

PROJECT VICINITY
6/18/2021
PROJECT NUMBERS: DR 21-7008, TPM 21-4001, ENV 21-1510
Banning City Boundary
2686

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Project: DR 21-7008 & TPM 38164
The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, Development Project Coordinator of the City of Banning, California.

On the 25th day of June, 2024, pursuant to Government Code Section 65091(a)(5)(B), I posted a true and correct copy of the notice of public hearing attached hereto as Exhibit “B” at each of the two public places specified below.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on the 25th day of June, 2024, at Banning, County of Riverside, State of California.

Sandra B. Calderon
Development Project Coordinator
City of Banning
Notice of Public Hearing Posted at:
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
City of Banning website
2687

Banning City CouncilJuly 9, 2024

Banning City Council
July 9, 2024