Agenda packet, regular meeting, third session — Banning City Council, September 10, 2024 (part 4 of 6)

phacelia and the San Miguel Savory. In addition, the site does not show any existing trees on site, but even it if did, BIO-3 would require replacement of such trees. Therefore, based on these findings and with the imposition of BIO-1 through BIO-3, potential impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to less than significance so as not to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat within the meaning of subsection (e) of Government Code Section 66474 and Public Resources Code Section 21100.

G. The design of the subdivision and improvements proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 are not likely to cause serious health problems. (1) 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 established by judgment 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 722
Resolution 2024-151

Page 13 of 17 ends

Project, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary clearances and permits from the California Water Quality Control Board for the Colorado River Basin (Condition 20 (d)). With the design of the Project and Map and compliance with this condition, the discharge of waste into the City’s sewer system will not result in a violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements within the meaning of Government Code Section 66474.6.

SECTION 4: Design Review Findings for Denial. Sections 17.56.010 and 17.56.050 of the City of Banning Municipal Code requires that applications for Design Review approval to achieve certain community goals and purposes to satisfy certain specified findings and criteria. The City Council makes the following findings to deny Design Review 21-7008:

A. The proposed project conflicts with and is inconsistent with one of the purposes of the City’s Design Review process which is to maintain the public health, safety and welfare and property throughout the City.
(1) The City Council recognizes that in approving the Tentative Parcel Map application but without approving the proposed uses for the parcels, that its internal configuration and lot design is consistent with the General Plan and the Amendment No. 5 to the Specific Plan. In evaluating the Project as a whole under the City’s Design Review Chapter of the Banning Municipal Code (Chapter 17.56), the City Council must consider additional factors. As stated by the Banning Municipal Code Section 17.56.010 (E), one of the purposes of Design Review is to “maintain the public health, safety and general welfare and property throughout the City.”
(2) Although the internal features of the Project meet various subdivision standards, the external impacts of the Project upon the community would have a deleterious effect on public safety and to properties in its immediate vicinity. Specifically, the Project will result in a significant increase in truck traffic immediately adjacent to the Sun Lakes Country Club Community which lies across the street from the Project site. The Sun Lakes Club Community is a community exclusively for residents 55 years of age or older. Similarly, the Lakes Banning Retirement Home is an assisted living facility designated for senior living. These two residential communities are located in close proximity to the Project. The additional noise, traffic, and vehicular and pedestrian hazards that the residents, in this 55 years or older age community would face from this Project will increase the public safety risks associated with this Project that is immediately adjacent to the Sun Lakes Country Club Community. These hazards include vehicular safety risks from residential vehicular trips to and from the Sun Lakes Country Club Community as the residents face a substantial increase in truck traffic on Sun Lakes Boulevard.

In addition, pedestrian safety risks arise from residents who live in the Sun Lakes Country Club Community walking to and from their homes, along Sun Lakes Boulevard and up to the community shopping center at the northeast corner of Sun Lakes Boulevard and Highland Springs Avenue.
(3) Furthermore, the Project will introduce a truck-intensive industrial project adjacent to a spacious, quiet, heavily landscaped, and suburban planned residential community, creating a stark and incompatible conflict of uses immediately adjacent to each other. A truck intensive drive-isle is also planned 723
Resolution 2024-151

Page 14 of 17 ends

immediately adjacent to and close to the easterly boundary of the site and immediately adjacent to an existing assisting living facility known as the Lakes Banning Retirement Home. Thus, although the land use may be permitted on the site by the General Plan and Specific Plan, the impacts of the Project at its current location will not achieve the purposes of Design Review of “maintain[ing] the public health, safety and general welfare and property throughout the City” because the Project would be detrimental to maintaining property surrounding the site in a manner that retains its current character, value, and features. (4) For these reasons, the City Council finds that the Project does not accomplish this important goal and purpose of the Design Review process.

B. The design and layout of the proposed project will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development. (1) The design and layout of the Project will unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of existing nearby neighborhoods. The design and layout of the buildings and improvements will place a truck intensive development Project immediately north and west of residential neighborhoods, increasing traffic and compromising pedestrian safety. In addition, this truck intensive development Project will impair the quiet enjoyment of the abutting residential uses with vehicular noise.

C. The design and layout of the proposed project will result in vehicular and/or pedestrian hazards.
(1) The Sun Lakes Club Community is a community exclusively for residents 55 years of age or older. Similarly, the Lakes Banning Retirement Home is an assisted living facility designated for senior living. These two residential communities are located in close proximity to the Project. The Sun Lakes Country Club community is a planned residential community around a large golf course. Golf is a popular recreational activity practiced by these two neighboring communities. The design and layout of the Project will result in vehicular pedestrian hazards because there are minimal protections for pedestrians or golf cart users utilizing Sun Lakes Boulevard to connect to the Sun Lakes Country Club Community. (2) The Project identifies three truck courts and semi-truck circulation access points.

These are as follow:
 Access points off Sun Lakes Blvd: 40' wide driveway (at cul-de-sac) & 46' driveway (divided by 6' median) & 40' wide shared driveway;  Access points for retail: West side - 24' wide driveway off Sun Lakes Village Dr & East side - Two (2) 26' wide driveways off shared driveway;  Access points for warehouse: West side- 29'-10" wide driveway off Sun Lakes Village Dr & East side- Three (3) driveways 24' wide, 29' wide, 40' wide off shared driveway.
724
Resolution 2024-151

Page 15 of 17 ends

The Project’s use and site plan will require 100 percent of daily and nightly truck trips traffic into and out of the site to utilize Sun Lakes Boulevard. Although the Project site has frontage only on Sun Lakes Boulevard, the development of the site for a large warehouse use rather than other smaller uses or a mix of various uses, will nonetheless result in a concentration of truck traffic among Sun Lakes Boulevard, which will conflict with the safe movement of pedestrians and area residents using golf carts. As such, the design and layout of the Project fails to take in account the accessibility needs of this age group when tailoring protections that will best protect the safety of pedestrian and seniors traveling and/or living nearby.

D. The design of the proposed project is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(1) The Sun Lakes Club Community and the Lakes Banning Retirement Home are two residential communities in close proximity to this Project. The Project proposed pursuant to Design Review 21-7008 is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods because the Project fails to account for the accessibility needs of the senior citizen population living and traveling near the Project. In addition, the truck intensive environment that would be generated by the Project will impair the quiet enjoyment of the abutting residential uses.

Vehicular noise and traffic will conflict with the tranquil and quiet environment sought out by senior residents living nearby.
(2) The design of the Project is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods because there are minimal protections for pedestrians or golf cart users utilizing Project-impacted-streets. The design fails to take into account the accessibility needs of seniors and residents living nearby. In addition, community residents will be forced to share traffic impacted streets potentially exposing vulnerable community members, such as residents from the nearby assisted living facility, to traffic impacts that can potentially delay access to rapid emergency response services, exposing residents to new vehicular hazards.

SECTION 5: Project Action. 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 City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, but only to the extent set forth in Paragraph B of Section 3; and imposes all of the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A on Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 to this Resolution, which are hereby incorporated herein by this reference; and sustains the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review No. 21-7008, thereby denying Design Review No. 21-7008. The City Council’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 shall be deemed only an approval of the subdivision of the Project into three parcels and not an approval of any other aspect of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164.

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.

Page 16 of 17 ends

time is provided by other applicable law. The City Clerk shall mail by first class mail, postage prepaid, a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing to the Appellant, Applicant, and any other persons or entities requesting notice of determinations related to the decision.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

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

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
726
Resolution 2024-151

Page 17 of 17 ends

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-150, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
727
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 City of Banning
Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval
PROJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 (TPM 21-4001)
SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval (City Council Resolution 2024-150) APPLICANT: Pamela Steele, MIG, Inc.

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

EXHIBIT A
To City Council Resolution 2024-150
* 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. These conditions of approval relate to lot configuration, size, and number of parcels. Because Design Review Approval 21-7008 was not approved by the City Council, none of the conditions listed herein that relate to building design related improvements to serve those buildings are intended to indirectly approve those buildings, proposed uses, or site improvements intended for those buildings and uses. A future application for Design Review will be required before any structural development of specific buildings housing specific uses may be undertaken.

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

3. All activities undertaken in connection with the approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 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.

4. 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, 728
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action.

5. 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.

6. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 (TPM 21-4001) shall expire two (2) years from the date of this approval. The City may consider an extension of the approval for TPM 21-4001 upon a written application being filed a minimum of 30 days prior to expiration of TPM 21-4001 and making timely payment of the appropriate filing fees. The City may for good cause, grant a one-year extension of time provided that any such requested extension of time complies with all current provisions of Title 16 – Subdivisions and Title17 – Zoning, of the Banning Municipal Code.

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

8. 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.

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

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

A. Water conservation concept statement.

B. Calculation of maximum applied water allowance.

C. Calculation of estimated total water use.

D. Landscape design plan.

E. Irrigation design plan.

F. Certificate of substantial completion.

G. The landscape plan shall demonstrate compliance with Zoning 729
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 Ordinance requirements related to minimum dimensions and percentages of landscaping in parking areas, including required front yard setback landscaping.

10.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.

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

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

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

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:

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

15.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)

16.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.

17.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):
b. Rough Grading Plans 1" = 40' horizontal
A. (All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced
730
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 B. on last sheet of set)
c. Haul Route Plans 1" = 40' horizontal
d. Clearing Plans 1" = 50' horizontal
A. (Include construction fencing plan)
e. Erosion Control & SWPPP, WQMP 1” = 40’ Horizontal
A. (Note: a, b, c & d shall be reviewed
B. and approved concurrently)
e. Storm Drain Plans 1” = 40’ Horizontal
f. Street Improvement Plans 1" = 40' Horizontal
i.1" = 4' Vertical
g. Precise Grading Plans 1" = 40' Horizontal
h. Landscaping Plans 1” = 20 Horizontal
i. Water Improvement Plans 1” = 40’ Horizontal
i.1” = 4’ Vertical
j. Sewer Improvement Plans 1” = 40’ Horizontal
i.1” = 4’ Vertical

18.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.

19.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.

20.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.

21.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 “AsBuilt” conditions.

Street Improvements/Right-of-Way

22.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.

23.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.

24.Provide paved golf cart access adjacent to the sidewalk through the property and at the 731
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 proposed traffic signal entrance.

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

26.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.

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

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

29.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.

30.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:

31.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-ofway; when this criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed.

32.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.

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

34.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. 732
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

35.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.

36.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.

37.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.

38.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.

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

40.Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).

41.Temporary Sediment Control.

42.Wind Erosion Control.

43.Tracking Control.

44.Non-Storm Water Management.

45.Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.

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

47.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.

48.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.

49.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.
733
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

50.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.

51.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:

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

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

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

55.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.

56.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:

57.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.

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

59.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 734
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 enclosures for multiple tenant properties, such as a shopping center, must design the enclosure to accommodate all waste containers of the property.

60.Solid waste enclosures shall be required for all new development projects and shall be located on the site to be serviced.

61.Solid waste enclosures shall be designed for the exclusive use of housing solid waste containers including trash, recyclable and organics materials.

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

WATER:

63.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.

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

65.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.

66.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.

67.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:
735
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

68.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.

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

WASTEWATER:

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

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

71.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:

72.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.

73.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.

74.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.

75.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:

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

77.Security for the construction of public improvements in accordance with Government Code Section 66499 shall be as follows:
a. Faithful Performance Bond 100% of estimated cost
736
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 b. Labor and Material Bond 100% of estimated cost
c. Monumentation Bond $5,000.00

78.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.

79.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.

80.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).

81.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.

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

83.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.

84.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:

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

86.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

87.Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/devices on fire apparatus access roads 737
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 shall be submitted and approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. Ref. CFC 503.4.1

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

89.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.

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

91.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.

92.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

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

94.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

95.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)

96.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

97.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].

98.Use the Above Statement only if it meets the Strategic Planning Case Review Criteria below:
a. Environmental Impact Reports
b. General Plan Amendments
738
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 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

99.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.
100. 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. ***END***
739
Resolution 2024-151

Page 1 of 10 ends

RESOLUTION 2024-151
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, (1) DISAPPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38164, A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 47 GROSS ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO THREE PARCELS; (2) DENYING DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-7008 A PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 619,959 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING, INCLUDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND A COMBINED 34,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL

BUILDINGS, ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN: 419- 140-057), (3) MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 15720(A) OF THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2020029074) prepared for, and approved, Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SLVNSP) (Ordinance 1571 for Zone Change 20-3501).

Amendment No. 5 revised the Specific Plan Land Use Plan from Retail Commercial (Auto Dealer) to Business Park & Warehouse (BW), Office & Professional (OP), and Retail & Service (RS), and revised the permitted land uses, development standards (including maximum building height, setbacks, open space, landscaping, parking, and signage), and design guidelines for the development and implementation provisions of the SLVNSP; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the interests of Sun Lakes Highland, LLC (Applicant), an application was submitted for approval of proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 (TPM 21- 4001) to subdivide approximately 47.11 acres of vacant real property into three commercial and industrial parcels, and for Design Review No. 21-7008, to construct a 619,959 square-foot industrial warehouse building with 10,000 square feet of office space, and six retail/commercial buildings totaling 34,000 square feet and associated utility, parking, roadway, and landscaping improvements (all together, the “Project”), on real property identified as APN 419-140-057; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, and December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on the Project, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of or in opposition to the Project. At the conclusion of the public hearing on December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-16, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 and approving Design Review No. 21-7008, including conditions of approval for the Project. Pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 16.14, the Planning Commission’s decision has been interpreted by City Staff and the City Council as a recommendation to the City Council for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Section 17.68.100, three applications seeking to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision on the Project were received during the appeal period following the Planning Commission’s action; and 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 740
Resolution 2024-151

Page 2 of 10 ends

Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), who subsequently withdrew its appeal on January 18, 2022, and announced its support for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger submitted an appeal on behalf of Appellant, Pass Area Action Group (PAG), and a three-page letter on behalf of Appellant, which was supplemented by a 428-page letter submitted via email on January 24, 2022 (the “Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 and the Appeal hearing on Design Review No. 21-7008 was scheduled for January 31, 2022, and in compliance with applicable law, the City provided public notice of the public hearing by advertising in the Record Gazette newspaper on January 21, 2022, and by mailing notices to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the City subsequently received requests from both Pass Area Action Group and the Applicant to continue the Appeal hearing to allow for additional time to review the materials related to the Project; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the requests from both Appellant and Applicant for a continuance of the public hearing, at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting held on January 25, 2022, the City Council voted to cancel the Appeal hearing previously noticed f o r January 31, 2022, and to reschedule the public hearing to February 17, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City provided public notice of the rescheduled public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 and the Appeal hearing on Design Review 21-7008 by advertising in the Record Gazette newspaper on February 4, 2022, and by again mailing (on February 3, 2022) notices to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject site; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2022, the City Council of the City of Banning conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal, at which time all interested persons, including Appellant and Applicant, were given an opportunity to speak and to present both oral and written evidence in support of and in opposition to the Appeal. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 17, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-14, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, approving Design Review 21-7008 and denying the Appeal, including Conditions of Approval of the Project, and adopting an Addendum to the certified EIR prepared for Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SCH # 2020029074); and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, PAG filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“Petition”) with the Riverside County Superior Court (Case No. CVRI2201482), challenging the City of Banning’s approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the lawsuit alleged that the City failed to provide a fair hearing due to alleged bias by Councilmembers Hamlin, Sanchez, and Wallace. The lawsuit also contended that the City violated CEQA and the City’s General Plan in approving the Project, and that the findings in support of the Project were not supported by substantial evidence; and WHEREAS, following briefing and a hearing on the merits, the trial court issued a ruling finding only that the City did not provide a fair hearing based on the court’s conclusion that thenCouncilmember Hamlin was biased in favor of the Project. The court rejected all claims of bias as to Councilmember Wallace and Councilmember Sanchez, stating in its ruling that “their 741
Resolution 2024-151

Page 3 of 10 ends

statements do not overcome the presumption that they are unbiased. There has been no showing of a financial or personal interest in the Project and no specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias….” The court also rejected in its entirety all of PAG’s substantive challenges, finding that the City fully complied with CEQA, that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and that the City’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, as discussed further below. As the court concluded in its ruling, the court “does not find that Petitioner [PAG] has carried its burden of proof on any remaining issue and would not grant the writ but for the fair hearing issue.”; and WHEREAS, the court entered judgment and issued a writ of mandate directing the City to set aside and vacate the prior approval and to reconsider the Project without the participation of Councilmember Hamlin; and
WHEREAS, the City provided public notice of a public hearing on the Project by advertising in the Record Gazette newspaper on June 28, 2024, and by mailing (on June 25, 2024) notices to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2024, the City Council of the City of Banning adopted Resolution No. 2024-113 to set aside the prior Project approvals in compliance with the writ of mandate. Also on July 9, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested persons, including Appellant and Applicant, were given an opportunity to speak and to present both oral and written evidence in support of and in opposition to the Project.

Following the public hearing, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution for the City Council’s consideration at a later date to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 but deny Design Review 21-7008, and to make appropriate findings in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council of the City of Banning continued their deliberation on the Project, at which time all interested persons, including Appellant and Applicant, were given an opportunity to speak and to present both oral and written evidence in support of and in opposition to the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including supporting reports by City Staff, written materials timely received by the City, and information provided during public meetings.

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

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

SECTION 2: Tentative Parcel Map Findings for Denial. Subsection (B) of Section 16.14.050 of the Banning Municipal Code provides that any action taken by the City Council concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 shall be supported by the findings required by Sections 66427.1, 66473.5, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the California Government Code and Section 21100 of 742
Resolution 2024-151

Page 4 of 10 ends

the California Public Resources Code. In addition, Section 66474 of the California Government Code states that a City Council shall deny the approval of a tentative map if the Project fails to meet any of the requirements outlined in Section 66474.

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

B. The design and improvement of the subdivision proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5.
(1) The Tentative Parcel Map covers an area of approximately 47.11 acres and proposes to divide that area into three parcels. The largest proposed parcel is

30.22 acres is in the northwestern portion of the Map and is adjacent to the backside of the Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Interstate-10 Freeway. This parcel is proposed for a warehouse building of approximately 619,959 square feet along with associated truck parking, loading, landscaping, and other uses. 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. 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 located in close proximity to a residential community. On this lot, retail stores, restaurants and service uses are proposed.
(2) Government Code Section 66474(b) and the Banning Municipal Code Section

16.14.050(B) provide that the City Council shall disapprove the Tentative Parcel Map if the design and improvement of the map is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5. (3) The design of the subdivision proposed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is inconsistent with the General Plan Policy No. 7 of the City’s Industrial Land Use Goal which provides that there shall be sufficient industrial lands for manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution, while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands. While the proposed parcel of 30.22 acres, designed for a large future warehouse use, is placed furthest away from residential uses to the south, the use of that one lot for one large truck-intensive warehouse, rather than a mix of other uses that would also be consistent with the Specific Plan, together with the only available access points to the site onto and off of Sun Lakes Boulevard, means that a large truck-intensive building and use with truck access points to the 743
Resolution 2024-151

Page 5 of 10 ends

site is placed immediately adjacent to a quiet planned residential community and an assisted living facility. The main access points for this Project include Sun Lake Blvd and Sun Lakes Village Dr., roads located adjacent to a residential community and a nearby assisted living facility. According to the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, Sun Lakes Blvd is designated as a Major Highway connecting multiple capillary streets to adjacent residential lands. Pedestrians, visitors, and community residents share these same access points potentially exposing vulnerable community members, such as residents from the nearby assisted living facility, to traffic flow that can potentially delay access to rapid emergency response services, expose them to health risks, and new vehicular hazards. (4) The Tentative Parcel Map is inconsistent with the Site Design and Circulation Goal

3.2.1 of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 of separating semi-truck access and circulation from passenger vehicle access and circulation to the greatest extent feasible within the Business & Warehouse District to minimize conflicts.
(5) Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 is inconsistent with Site Design and Circulation Goal 3.2.1 because the Project’s main access points are closest to residential uses and therefore the Project does not separate semi-truck access and circulation from passenger vehicle access and circulation to the greatest extent feasible. The driveway on the east side of the site is immediately adjacent to the Lakes assisted living facility thereby exposing residence in that facility to minimal buffering, increased noise and a diminishment in their quality of life.

SECTION 3: Design Review Findings for Denial. Sections 17.56.010 and 17.56.050 of the City of Banning Municipal Code requires that applications for Design Review approval to achieve certain community goals and purposes to satisfy certain specified findings and criteria. The City Council makes the following findings to deny Design Review 21-7008:

A. The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan.
(1) Design Review 21-7008 is inconsistent with Policy 2 of the Community Development Element of the General Plan’s Residential Goals, Policies, and Programs. Policy 2 states that projects adjacent to existing neighborhoods shall be carefully reviewed to assure that neighborhood character is protected. Design Review 21-7008 is inconsistent with this policy because the Project contains a large warehouse building and use as distinguished from a mix of other permitted uses and smaller buildings, resulting in a highly truck-intensive development that is incompatible with and does not safeguard adjacent residential communities deleterious impacts with respect to traffic, noise, and other associated impacts created by the proposed industrial development.

B. The proposed project conflicts with and is inconsistent with one of the purposes of the City’s Design Review process which is to maintain the public health, safety and welfare and property throughout the City.
(1) In evaluating the Project as a whole under the City’s Design Review Chapter of the Banning Municipal Code (Chapter 17.56), the City Council must consider 744
Resolution 2024-151

Page 6 of 10 ends

additional factors. As stated by the Banning Municipal Code Section 17.56.010 (E), one of the purposes of Design Review is to “maintain the public health, safety and general welfare and property throughout the City.”
(2) The external impacts of the Project upon the community would have a deleterious effect on public safety and to properties in its immediate vicinity. Specifically, the Project will result in a significant increase in truck traffic immediately adjacent to the Sun Lakes Country Club Community which lies across the street from the Project site. The Sun Lakes Club Community is a community exclusively for residents 55 years of age or older. Similarly, the Lakes Banning Retirement Home is an assisted living facility designated for senior living. These two residential communities are located in close proximity to the Project. (3) The additional noise, traffic, and vehicular and pedestrian hazards that the residents in this 55 years or older age community would face from this Project will increase the public safety risks associated with this Project that is immediately adjacent to the Sun Lakes Country Club Community. These hazards include vehicular safety risks from residential vehicular trips to and from the Sun Lakes Country Club Community as the residents face a substantial increase in truck traffic on Sun Lakes Boulevard. In addition, pedestrian safety risks arise from residents who live in the Sun Lakes Country Club Community walking to and from their homes, along Sun Lakes Boulevard and up to the community shopping center at the northeast corner of Sun Lakes Boulevard and Highland Springs Avenue.
(4) Furthermore, the Project will introduce a truck-intensive industrial project adjacent to a spacious, quiet, heavily landscaped, and suburban planned residential community, creating a stark and incompatible conflict of uses immediately adjacent to each other. A truck intensive drive-isle is also planned immediately adjacent to and close to the easterly boundary of the site and immediately adjacent to an existing assisting living facility known as the Lakes Banning Retirement Home. Thus, although the land use may be permitted on the site by the General Plan and Specific Plan, the impacts of the Project at its current location will not achieve the purposes of Design Review of “maintain[ing] the public health, safety and general welfare and property throughout the City” because the Project would be detrimental to maintaining property surrounding the site in a manner that retains its current character, value, and features. (5) For these reasons, the City Council finds that the Project does not accomplish this important goal and purpose of the Design Review process.

C. The design and layout of the proposed project will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development. (1) The design and layout of the Project will unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of existing nearby neighborhoods. This design and layout will place a truck intensive development project immediately north and west of residential neighborhoods increasing traffic and compromising pedestrian safety. In addition, this truck intensive development project will impair the quiet enjoyment of the 745
Resolution 2024-151

Page 7 of 10 ends

abutting residential uses with vehicular noise and traffic.

D. The design and layout of the proposed project will result in vehicular and/or pedestrian hazards.
(1) As mentioned, the Sun Lakes Club Community is a community exclusively for residents 55 years of age or older and the Lakes Banning Retirement Home is an assisted senior living facility. These two residential communities are located in close proximity to the Project. The Sun Lakes Country Club community is a planned residential community around a large golf course. Golf is a popular recreational activity practiced by these two neighboring communities. The design and layout of the Project will result in vehicular and pedestrian hazards because there are minimal protections for pedestrians or golf cart users utilizing Sun Lakes Boulevard to connect to the Sun Lakes Country Club Community.
(2) The Project identifies three truck courts and semi-truck circulation access points.

E. The design of the proposed project is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(1) The Sun Lakes Club Community and the Lakes Banning Retirement Home are two residential communities in close proximity to this Project. The Project proposed pursuant to Design Review 21-7008 is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods because the Project fails to account for the accessibility needs of the senior citizen population living and traveling near the Project. In addition, the truck intensive environment that would be generated by the Project will impair the quiet enjoyment of the abutting residential uses.

Vehicular noise and traffic will conflict with the tranquil and quiet environment 746
Resolution 2024-151

Page 8 of 10 ends

sought out by senior residents living nearby.
(2) The design of the Project is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods because there are minimal protections for pedestrians or golf cart users utilizing Project-impacted-streets. The design fails to take into account the accessibility needs of seniors and residents living nearby. In addition, community residents will be forced to share traffic impacted streets potentially exposing vulnerable community members, such as residents from the nearby assisted living facility, to traffic impacts that can potentially delay access to rapid emergency response services, exposing residents to new vehicular hazards.

SECTION 4: Project Denial and Upholding of Appeal. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3 above, and all of the evidence (both written and oral) in the record, this City Council hereby disapproves the Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164; and upholds and sustains the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review No. 21-7008, thereby denying Design Review No. 21-7008.

SECTION 5: Environmental Findings.

A. The City Council, based on its independent judgment, does hereby find, determine and declare that the Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “CEQA Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

B. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to prepare and file a Notice of Exemption in the form and manner required by CEQA.

C. 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 during regular business hours.

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

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2024. 747
Resolution 2024-151

Page 9 of 10 ends

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

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

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
748
Resolution 2024-151

Page 10 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-151, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
749
The following information comprises the minutes for a regular 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 7/9/2024

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Sheri Flynn
Council Member David Happe
Mayor Pro Tem Minjares
Mayor Alberto Sanchez
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Schulze, City Manager
Laurie Sampson, Assistant City Manager
Serita Young, City Attorney
Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
John Garside, Multimedia Specialist
Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director
Art Vela, Director of Public Works
Emery Papp, Senior Planner

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Sanchez called the regular meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.

1.1. Invocation – Reverend Dr. James Baylark of First Community Baptist Church led the invocation.

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance

1.3. Roll Call

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 

2. AGENDA APPROVAL

2.1. Approve Agenda
Motion to approve the agenda, reordering agenda item 6.2 and 7.1 to before the consent agenda.
750
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 2 of 14
Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Proclamation - Parks and Recreation Month

4. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Serita Young, City Attorney reported that there was discussion and direction provided to staff, with no final nor reportable action.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, APPOINTMENTS, CITY COUNCIL

COMMITTEE REPORTS, CITY MANAGER REPORT, AND CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

5.1. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following individuals addressed City Council during Public Comment:
• Frank Burgess
• Lynnea Hagen
• Ellen Carr
• John Hagen
• Inge Schuler
• Virginia DeBry
• Cindy Barrington
• Diego Rose
• Kathleen Dale
• Virginia Cervantes
• Bill Hobbs
• Frank Connolly

5.2. CORRESPONDENCE
There were a number of items of correspondence related to Agenda Item 7.1 which were provided to the City Council. One item of correspondence was received related to general interest, which was also provided to the City Council.

5.3. APPOINTMENTS

5.3 Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the 2024 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Conference
751
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 3 of 14
Motion to appoint Council Member Wallace as the Voting Delegate and Council Member Flynn as the Alternate for the 2024 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Conference.

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

5.4. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Member Wallace reported on a Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) meeting as well a CalCities Riverside Division meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Minjares had no report.

Council Member Flynn reported on a Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) meeting and a CalCities Riverside Division meeting. She also spoke on the Animal Shelter Ad Hoc Committee.

Council Member Happe had no report.

Mayor Sanchez had no report.

5.5. CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Schulze reported on a recent Supreme Court ruling related to illegal camping ordinances. He then updated the City Council on the current status of animal shelter services in the City. He stated he would abstain from agenda item 6.9.

5.6. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Young noted that she would be abstaining from agenda item 6.18.

5.7. CITY TREASURER REPORT
City Treasurer Geronimo was not in attendance.

6.2 Consideration of Resolution 2024-113, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, Setting Aside and Vacating its Previous Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Approval of Design Review 21-7008 and Denial of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Design Review 21- 7008, and Adoption of an Addendum, All in Connection with the Banning Point Project, Doing so in Compliance with the Peremptory Writ of Mandate that Requires the City 752
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 4 of 14
Council to Set Aside and Vacate those Decisions, and Rescinding City Council Resolution 2022-14
Serita Young, City Attorney, presented the staff report.

Public Comment
• Kathleen Dale
• Inge Schuler
• Ismael Morales
• Paige Gosney
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-113.

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

Mayor Sanchez announced a recess at 6:21 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 6:39 p.m.

7.1. Consideration of Resolution 2024-114, (1) Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Allowing the Subdivision of Approximately 47 Gross Acres of Vacant Land Into Three Parcels; (2) Affirming the Planning Commission’s Approval of Design Review No. 21-7008 and Denying an Appeal of that Decision and Permitting the Construction of a Proposed 619,959 Square Foot Industrial Warehouse Building, including 10,000 Square Feet of Office Space and a Combined 34,000 Square Feet of Retail/Commercial Buildings, on Real Property Located within the Boundaries of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area (APN: 419- 140-057); and (3) Adopting an Addendum under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Making Findings in Support Thereof, Including Findings of Consistency with the Certified Environmental Impact Report Prepared for Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SCH # 2020029074)
Mayor Sanchez explained the procedural order of the meeting, the use of speaker cards, the time limit for public comments and the rules of decorum.

Mayor Sanchez invited the Council Members to disclose any “extra-meeting contacts” with applicant and/or appellant:
 Council Member Wallace reported she had met with the applicant but gained no additional information than presented in the staff report.  Mayor Pro Tem Minjares reported having attended no meetings. 753
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 5 of 14
 Council Member Flynn reported having participated in two Pass Action Group meetings as an observer.
 Council Member Happe reported he had met with the applicant but gained no additional information than presented in the staff report.  Mayor Sanchez reported having attended no meetings.

Emery Papp, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the City Council.

Applicant Presentation
Josh Zemon and Auggie Gomez of Creation Equity presented on behalf of the project applicant. Paige Gosley, Legal Counsel for the applicant, spoke on behalf of Creation Equity. Applicants answered the City Council’s clarifying questions.

Appellant Presentation
Randy Robbins presented on behalf of the appellant, Pass Action Group. Appellants answered the City Council’s clarifying questions.

Appellant Rebuttal
Kevin Bundy, Legal Counsel for the appellants, presented on behalf of the Pass Action Group.

Applicant Rebuttal
Paige Gosley, Legal Counsel for the applicants, presented on behalf of Creation Equity. Josh Zemon also addressed the City Council in support of the project.

Mayor Sanchez announced a recess at 8:41 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:05 p.m.

Public Testimony
 Juan Serrato spoke in support.
 Jonathan Dailey spoke in support.
 Alex Zamora spoke in support.
 Virginia DeBry spoke in opposition.
 John Swem spoke in opposition.
 Bruce L. Brown spoke in opposition.
 Michele Walter spoke in opposition.
 James Corrigan spoke in opposition.
 Al Sanchez spoke in support.
 John Hagen spoke in opposition.
 Virgina E. Cervantes spoke in opposition.
 Nick Gumbleton spoke in support.
 Andrew Mayorga spoke in support.
 Ralph Velador spoke in support.
 Jose Radillo spoke in support.
 Ismael Morales spoke in opposition.
 Ron Roy spoke in opposition.
 Jose Garcia spoke in support.
 Mario Gamboa spoke in support.
 Steven Parker spoke in opposition.
 Efrain Lopez spoke in support.
754
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 6 of 14
 Jayson Baiz spoke in support.
 Richard McHard spoke in opposition.
 Bill Hobbs spoke in opposition.
 Betty Badalamente spoke in opposition.
 Kathleen Dale spoke in opposition.

Motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the tentative parcel map.

Motion by Council Member Flynn
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

Motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying Design Review 21-7008 based on the facts articulated by the City Council supporting findings for denial and bring the resolution back to City Council for their consideration at a future meeting.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares
Seconded by Council Member Flynn

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 3-2.

Motion to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m.

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
755
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 7 of 14
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

Mayor Sanchez announced a recess at 10:48 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:59 p.m.

6. CONSENT AGENDA

6.1 Approval of the Meeting Minutes for the June 25, 2024 City Council Meetings

6.2 Consideration of Resolution 2024- 113, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, Setting Aside and Vacating its Previous Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Approval of Design Review 21-7008 and Denial of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Design Review 21- 7008, and Adoption of an Addendum, All in Connection with the Banning Point Project, Doing so in Compliance with the Peremptory Writ of Mandate that Requires the City Council to Set Aside and Vacate those Decisions, and Rescinding City Council Resolution 2022-14 Considered above.

6.3 Consideration of Resolution 2024 -115, Awarding a Citywide Professional Services Agreement for As Needed Public Relations and Community Outreach Consulting Services in the amount of $295,000 for Three (3) Year Agreement with DeGrave Communications Inc.

6.4 Consideration of Resolution 2024 -116, Approving the Award of Contract for Roadway and Storm Drain Asset Collection and Analysis with Roadway Asset Services of Austin, Texas for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 in the Amount of $302,082

6.5 Consideration of Resolution 2024-117, Approving an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Investel Development LLC for City-Owned Real Property Located at 150 E. Ramsey Street, Banning (APNs 541-181-032, 541-181-033, 541-181-034, and 541-181-035)

6.6 Consider Resolution 2024- 118, Rescinding its Adoption of Resolution 2024-66, and Approving an Office Lease with Riverside County on Behalf of the Emergency Management Department for Office Space within the Armory Located at 2041 W.

Nicolet St. to be used by the Radio Amateur Emergency Service (RACES)

6.7 Consideration of Resolution 2024- 119, Awarding a Professional Services Agreement for the Design of Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrade at 17 Intersections to STC Traffic, Inc. in the amount of $74,760 and Approving a 10% Contingency for a Total Project Budget of “Not-to-Exceed” $82,236

6.8 Consideration of Resolution 2024-120, Approving and Authorizing Submittal of California Emergency Management Agency Form to California Office of Emergency Services Form 130 Designating Personnel to Act As the Agent for the City When Seeking Financial Assistance After a Disaster

6.9 Consideration of Resolution 2024-121, Approving a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement with NP Banning Industrial, LLC

6.10 Consideration of Resolution 2024-122, Adopting Administrative Policy, Risk Management (RM) #6 - A Workplace Violence Prevention Plan

6.11 Consideration of Resolution 2024-123, Approving the Line Extension Reimbursement Agreement Between the City of Banning and Robertson’s Ready Mix, LTD

6.12 Consideration of Resolution 2024-124, Awarding a Contract with Pinnacle Petroleum Inc. for Unleaded and Diesel Bulk Fuel Services in the Amount of $500,000

6.13 Consideration of Resolution 2024-125, Approving A Successor Memorandum of Understandings with the Teamsters Local 1932, Representing the Association of Mid-Management and Professional Employees, Effective July 1, 2022, through June 756
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 8 of 14
30, 2024, and Authorizing the City Manager to Finalize and Execute a Successor Agreement

6.14 Consideration of Resolution 2024-06 UA, Adopting the City of Banning's Sanitary Sewer Management Plan

6.15 Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1605, Amending Table 17.08.020 of Section 17.08.020 of Article I of Chapter 17.08 of Division II of Title 17 of the City of Banning Municipal Code to Clarify that Affordable Housing Uses are Permitted by Right and are not Subject to Discretionary Action in Specified Zoning Districts as Required by State Law; and Making a Determination of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act

6.16 Accept as Complete Various Improvements Related to the Atwell Specific Plan Development and Authorize the 90% Bond Exoneration

6.17 Butterfield Specific Plan Project (“Atwell”) Annual Development Agreement Review for 2024

6.18 City Attorney Annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Adjustment

6.19 Consideration of Resolution 2024-126, Declaring the Intent of the City to be Reimbursed for Certain Capital Expenditures from the Proceeds of Indebtedness

6.20 Consideration of Resolution 2024-127, Approving the purchase of a 2024 Chevrolet Silverado and All Needed Up Fitting Using PACT Funds in an Amount Not to Exceed $97,250.00
Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt consent agenda items 6.6 to 6.8, 6.10 to 6.17, and 6.19.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

Motion to continue the meeting for another hour, to 12:00 a.m.

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
757
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 9 of 14
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

6.1 Approval of the Meeting Minutes for the June 25, 2024 City Council Meetings Public Comment
None
Motion to attach the list of recommendations from the Animal Shelter Ad Hoc Committee to the meeting minutes for the Special City Council Meeting - Workshop that occurred on June 25, 2024.

Motion by Council Member Happe
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

6.3 Consideration of Resolution 2024-115, Awarding a Citywide Professional Services Agreement for As Needed Public Relations and Community Outreach Consulting Services in the amount of $295,000 for Three (3) Year Agreement with DeGrave Communications Inc.

Art Vela, Director of Public Works, responded to questions.

Public Comment
None
Doug Schulze, City Manager, added additional context to the staff report.

Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-115.

Motion by Council Member Happe
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 4-1.
758
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 10 of 14

6.4 Consideration of Resolution 2024-116, Approving the Award of Contract for Roadway and Storm Drain Asset Collection and Analysis with Roadway Asset Services of Austin, Texas for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 in the Amount of $302,082 Art Vela, Director of Public Works, responded to questions.

Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-116.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-117.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 4-1.

6.9 Consideration of Resolution 2024-121, Approving a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement with NP Banning Industrial, LLC
759
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 11 of 14
City Manager Schulze stated he would recuse himself due to personal property within 500 feet of the project.

Emery Papp, Senior Planner, responded to questions.

Public Comment
• Frank Connolly
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-121.

Motion by Council Member Happe
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

6.18 City Attorney Annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Adjustment City Attorney Young stated she would recuse herself due to a financial interest in her employer.

Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director, responded to questions.

Public Comment
• Frank Connolly
Motion to approving the annual rate increase in excess of 3% for the legal services agreement with Richards, Watson, and Gershon.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 4-1.

6.20 Consideration of Resolution 2024-127, Approving the purchase of a 2024 Chevrolet Silverado and All Needed Up Fitting Using PACT Funds in an Amount Not to Exceed $97,250.00
760
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 12 of 14
Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director, and Brandon Smith, Police Lieutenant, responded to questions.

Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-127.

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

7. PUBLIC HEARING(S)

7.1 Consideration of Resolution 2024-114, (1) Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, Allowing the Subdivision of Approximately 47 Gross Acres of Vacant Land Into Three Parcels; (2) Affirming the Planning Commission’s Approval of Design Review No. 21-7008 and Denying an Appeal of that Decision and Permitting the Construction of a Proposed 619,959 Square Foot Industrial Warehouse Building, including 10,000 Square Feet of Office Space and a Combined 34,000 Square Feet of Retail/Commercial Buildings, on Real Property Located within the Boundaries of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area (APN: 419- 140-057); and (3) Adopting an Addendum under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Making Findings in Support Thereof, Including Findings of Consistency with the Certified Environmental Impact Report Prepared for Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SCH # 2020029074) Considered above.

8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
None

9. DISCUSSION ITEM(S)
None

10. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

10.1. New Items

1. Increasing City Council, City Treasurer, City Clerk Compensation (Flynn) 761
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 13 of 14

10.2. Pending Items:

1. Grow Banning (Sanchez)

2. Neighborhood Groups/Identities (Minjares)

3. Update on Community Garden (Flynn)

4. Zencity Contract (Flynn)

5. Zoom Options for Public Meetings (Flynn)

6. Developer Presentation on Sunset Crossroads Project (Flynn)

7. City Manager Evaluation (Flynn)

8. Closed Session: Information Given to the Council on Lawsuit against the City (Flynn)

9. All Active Lawsuits against the City (Flynn)

10. Plot Map for Warehouses (Current/Planned) in the City (Flynn)

11. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
These minutes have been prepared as Action Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 1995-21 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).

This entire meeting and all associated documents may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1 ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A – Public Comment Received
Exhibit B – Agenda Item 7.1 – Staff Presentation
762
Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 14 of 14
Exhibit C – Agenda Item 7.1 – Applicant Presentation
Exhibit D – Agenda Item 7.1 – Appellant Presentation
Exhibit E – Agenda Item 7.1 – Public Comment Received
763
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Kathy Martin
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 4:37 PM
City Manager; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; David Happe; Colleen Wallace; Caroline Patton
Request for Action About a Council Member's Behavior
Tonight's City Council Meeting June 25, 2024.eml
Dear City of Banning Representatives,
I've forwarded the last email I sent to all of you (June 25, 2024) concerning behavior of Council Member Sheri Flynn at council meetings, on social media, and most recently in person. I never received a reply email, nor did I see any improvement in the behavior I cited that damages our city's reputation, community confidence, and now, my personal safety.

I've witnessed CM Flynn heckle community members who have an opinion contrary to her own during public comments. "Wipe that smile off your face" (directed to Chef Jeff Platt), "You're a liar" (directed at me when I stated I'd emailed and left a phone message on her city phone-she later found out she had IT problems.) She has overtalked every one of you, including the District Attorney, and not faced consequences.

On Facebook and elsewhere, she calls you (as a group or individually) "rubber stampers, liars, harassers, crooks accepting illegal donations via pay for play agreements, unintelligent, felons, uneducated, lazy" ... and mumbled cuss words when she thought no one was listening.

CM Flynn and her surrogates post embarrassing, unprofessional memes, and comments on Facebook's "Positively Banned in Banning" and "Banning City Council District 3, Sheri Flynn". I have screen shotted more than 100 of them because after each rant, she takes them back down. Here are just a few:
1 Exhibit A
764
1 Spectrum ~ 2:35 PM
X
< Sheri Flynn, ... Q ...

Admin 1d · !Ii)
I need your help. I have been falsely
accused of harassment and creating a
hostile work environment by an
employee. These complaints are
absolutely baseless, but I still need to
defend myself against them. I am being
subjected to an administrative
investigation interview with a San Jose
attorney on July 15th. I have hired an
attorney to represent me in this and
other matters. I have also filed a
harassment, discrimination, retaliation,
and creating a hostile workplace
complaint against an administrator.

Therefore, I have officially set up
through the FPPC a "City Council Sheri
Flynn Legal Defense Fund" to help
defray some of the legal costs to defend
against and pursue these complaints.

I respectfully and humbly am reaching
out to my supporters to help me fight
this injustice by contributing, if
possible, any amounts, large or small to
this fund.

Details to follow.

Thank you,
Sheri
E ''" .. ., . . ' ' ·' '
• '_, I
i: J. '\" .J .111...1 j .a 'Jo,_'J,~ ~• "ft.. • t 1 I• ~ 'lL ;.~ < • fl.',_ 100% (ff~ •
0 2
11 Spectrum? 1:15 PM
o•• 3
r/:J Like Q Comment
8 comments 1 share
r/:J Like Q Comment
Sheri Flynn
Admin 3h · 0 - -=;;,_-
100% !f~ •
3 comments 1 share
8 Send e;) Share
8 Send e;) Share
Video Marketplace Gaming Notifications Menu
765
,, Spectrum?
<
6:48PM
Comment
48m Like Reply
Sheri Flynn
0 Admln
100% (f~j]•
Kathy Martin Liar! They are illegal
occupiers, squatters, cruel to
animals, reprobates. They didn't
give you the ok. I walked in and
told you to get your ass out of the
nice AC and get those dogs some
water. I also told you to never ever
say to me that you care about the
animals. To look away at the abject
abuse of animals is criminal.
44m Like Reply
Kathy Martin
Patricia Smart Kelly So now you
think ARE, all the volunteers, the
Banning PD and AC Officers, the 2
top RCAS Officers, and the CM
who toured the shelter and saw
with their own eyes don't know the
law or what conditions must be
met to comply with the law by a
rescue???
They all agreed contrary, to Sherri
Flynn, that all animals were cared
for in compliance with the law-no
abuse, neglect, torture to be
Write a public reply ...

Although Ms. Flynn has been unkind to me before, she was threatening and intimidating with her words and behavior on July 5, 2024 towards me and others. In her 2nd unannounced "Free The Animals-They Are Being Abused, Tortured, and Neglected" attempt, I witnessed her disrespect toward the Banning Police, ARE Staff, the CM, and 3 volunteers (myself included). Her hollering, demanding, swearing, gesturing behavior was unsettling.

The police had asked us to stay in the office building while he investigated Ms. Flynn's request to arrest Amber for squatting and torturing the animals. While Amber and the CM calmly discussed matters in a back office, Ms. Flynn pushed through the front door, exited into the kennel area and grabbed the hose. She ordered me to "Get your a** out there and give the animals water-they are dying." I told her the police told us we couldn't do our work until she left. She hollered and pointed her finger in my face, "Kathy Martin, you b****, don't ever tell me you care about animals because you are an abuser too!"
3 766
After she left, RCAS and CM Doug Schulze toured the campus and found no areas that were out of compliance with the laws. (We were hosing the kennels and refilling water dishes with cold water every few hours lately. ) From that day forward, Ms. Flynn and her surrogates are posting videos Sheri took on July 5 to support her unfounded claims for all to see.

Please rein in the hostile behavior Council Member Flynn has been allowed to get away with for too long. Only then will I feel safe and protected enough to attend city council meetings.

Sincerely,
Kathleen M. Martin
Get Outlook for iOS
4 767
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kathy Martin
Tuesday, June 25, 2024 4:37 PM
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Tonight's City Council Meeting June 25, 2024
Dear City Manager and City Council,
I read you will be discussing the city's plans for the Banning Animal Shelter this evening. I want to let you know that I appreciate the courteous, concerned, and kind way you have listened to my experiences and ideas about the future of the ARE Rescue since I took up the cause in December of this year. Because of this, I will support and respect whatever decision you come up with as I believe you have considered this challenge, as well as many other challenges that Banning faces. I see that in your decisions to welcome and expand businesses and improve the way others see our city. I have seen all who've been sent this email attend and support community events (Town Hall Meetings, the Veteran's Expo, Chamber openings, Habitat for Humanity openings, holiday celebrations, etc.). You are actively promoting what can make our city grow in a positive direction.

What I cannot do is attend a meeting where one apple upsets the whole apple cart. She uses profane and degrading language. She accuses others of being "rubber stampers" if they don't fully back her ideas without question. She labels groups of you as "crooks", "liars", "buddies", folks who "have something to hide", and "pay-for-players" when votes don't go her way. She chatters audibly and to herself when others (council and community members alike) speak on a position she's not already on board with. She has tantrums and claimed "harassment" for a decision made during a closed meeting.

I will be watching the meeting from home tonight. I hope for peace, civility, and acceptance so the community can move forward in as an intelligent and affordable way as is possible.

Respectfully,
Kathleen Martin
5700 W. Wilson St. #137
Banning, CA 92220
[email protected]
1 768
City of Banning Fire Services
Office of the Fire Marshal
Proiect Corrections
Date: 6/28/24
~~~~ .. ~
Project Name: 1372 Vista Serena Banning, Ca 92220 , JrJ , / f[f /1 $,e/b'UJn Address:. 1372 Vista Serena Banning, _fa 9222Q__-.......... / ~ l..ff5 V (' Reviewed By: Mikki Sherry, Supervising FireMars~
Fire Department Permit Number:

City of Banning Office of the Fire Marshal
It is the responsibility of the recipient of these Fire Department conditions to forward them to all interested parties.

The permit number (as it is noted above) is required on all correspondence.

Additional information is available at our website: www.rvcfire.org Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal at 99 E.

Ramsey St. Banning, CA 92220 (951) 922-3169.

With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced project, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:

1. Provide documentation that gate was permitted through the City of Ban~ing or ubmit gate plans to acquire permits for the Fire Department access gate. j qJ I X 1 2~de-A€S+and-A · · · s fro .a
--G-49-Gootr.actor.

3. Re-stripe fire lanes red and wording shall be white specifying, "NO PARKING FIRE LANES - eve 22500.1"

4. Cover open electrical at doorbell adjacent to unit 1365.

5. Fire extinguishers throughout property shall be relocated to an accessible location or trim shrubs to allow access to the fire extinguisher.
· shal ations: 1ZTl),,...+.!H-S...~•4, 1272.

7. Reduce flammable liquids (Class I liquids) to less than 5 gallons or provide a flammable liquids cabinet in maintenance garage.

8. Provide housekeeping in maintenance shed.

9. Remove leaves from pool pump area.

10. Remove multisplit in laundry room or provide an additional outlet in laundry room area.

11. Fire extinguishers shall be placed every 75 feet of travel distance throughout property.

Should you have any questions, or if some items are unclear, please phone our office at 951-922-3169 and speak with Supervising Fire Marshal, Mikki Sherry to assist you with these conditions.

Mikki Sherry, Supervising Fire Marshal
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 Exhibit A
769
CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department
City of Banning Office of the Fire Marshal
Office - (951) 922-3169
[email protected]
Banning Fire Services - Office of the County Fire Marshal Planning Case Conditions - Page 2
99 E. Ramsey Street• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 770

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM 7.1 PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 9, 2024
DR 21-7008 & TPM 38164
BANNING POINT PROJECT – CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2024-114 APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE 47 ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO 3 PARCELS; AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF

DESIGN REVIEW (AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THAT DECISION) FOR 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 AREA (APN 419-140-057)
Background/Project Timeline • In December 2020, the City Council approved Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP which modified land uses in the Plan area, including those in the Banning Point Project area.

The prior SLVNSP Amendment No. 4 allowed for:

24.81 Acres (Planning Area B) for Auto Dealership uses adjacent to I-10/UP ROW

10.79 Acres (Planning Area D) for Retail/Commercial Uses

6.58 Acres (Planning Area E) for Retail/Commercial/Auto Dealership uses

4.92 Acres for Streets and Circulation
The SLVNSP Amendment No. 5 currently allows for:

30.22 Acres for a Business & Warehouse District

10.06 Acres for an Office & Professional District

6.83 Acres for a Retail & Service District
• In connection with Amendment No. 5, the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • No one challenged the Program EIR or Amendment No. 5, and those actions are now final.

Exhibit B
771
Background/Project Timeline (cont’d)
• The Banning Point Project Design Review (DR) and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) applications were heard by the Planning Commission on October 19, 2021 and on December 1, 2021.
• The Planning Commission approved the DR and recommended approval of the TPM to the City Council.
• The Planning Commission’s action was appealed by the Pass Area Action Group (PAG) and set for hearing on January 31, 2022, which was rescheduled to February 17, 2022 at the request of PAG and the Applicant.
• The City Council adopted an Addendum to the Program EIR under CEQA (as the Project proposes a smaller development than that analyzed in the Program EIR), denied the appeal of DR 21-7008, and approved TPM 38164 on February 17, 2022 when it adopted Resolution 2011-14 by a vote of 4-1, Councilmember Hamilin voting “No.” Background/Project Timeline (cont’d)
• On April 18, 2022, PAG filed a lawsuit in Riverside County Superior Court, challenging the City’s approval of the Project.
• The lawsuit challenged the City Council hearing in two main respects:
• The lawsuit alleged that three Councilmembers were biased and thus the hearing was not fair.
• The lawsuit alleged that the City violated CEQA by adopting an Addendum to the Program EIR.
772
Background/Project Timeline (con’t.)
• Following briefing and a bench trial, on March 13, 2024, the trial court ruled that the former Councilmember Hamlin was biased and thus the hearing was not fair.

The Court ordered the City Council to set aside and vacate the approvals, and to hold a new hearing without the participation of (former) Councilmember Hamlin if the Project was going to be reconsidered.
• The Court also ruled that PAG “… has not carried its burden of proof on any remaining issue” and the Court “would not grant the writ but for the fair hearing issue.”
• The Court ruled that the City fully complied with CEQA in its determination that the Project is consistent with the Program EIR certified for Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan and the Addendum prepared for the Project is appropriate. • The Court also ruled that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, and that the City’s required findings in support of the Project were supported by substantial evidence.

Purpose of Hearing
• The purpose of the hearing is to reconsider the Project, and PAG’s appeal, without the participation of former Councilmember Hamlin. • At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council will deliberate on the proposed TPM, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the DR for the Project, and the Addendum prepared under CEQA. 773
Project Overview
Vicinity Map
774
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
775
Development Opportunities
Land Use Summary Table
Existing Use Zoning Classification General Plan
Designation
Subject
Site Vacant Land Sun Lakes North SP* Sun Lakes North SP* North Right-of-Way R/W R/W
South Residential Specific Plan Zone Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
East Residential Low Density Residential
(LDR) LDR
West Sun Lakes Village
Shopping Center Specific Plan Zone General Commercial
*The Sun Lakes North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Land Use Map shows the Site as Business & Warehouse and Office & Professional.
776
Land Use Summary Table
Site Photos
777
Site Photos
Project Description
• Industrial Warehouse Building (619,959 s.f.)
• Retail Commercial (34,000 s.f.)
• Public Improvements, landscaping, and on-site
detention
• TPM 38164 - Subdivision of 47-acres into 3 lots
778
Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan
779
Proposed Project Circulation
Site Plan – Ingress/Egress
Proposed Vehicle Access Plan
780
Preliminary Landscape Plan
Landscape Example Photos
Sun Lakes North Specific Plan
781
Architectural Drawings
Architectural Drawings (cont’d)
782
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
783
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
784
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
785
• June 11, 2024 – City Council Public Hearing (10-days prior/1,000-foot radius – canceled)
• July 9, 2024 - City Council Public Hearing (10-days prior/1,000-foot radius)
Public Notice
Public Notice
(1,000-ft radius map):
786
Public Notice
(1,000-ft radius map):

Environmental Process
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED PROGRAM EIR FOR AMENDMENT No. 5:
• A Program EIR was prepared to consider the potential environmental impacts of Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, including changes to land uses.
• The Draft Program EIR was made available for public review and comment from September 11, 2020 through October 26, 2020.
• A Final Program EIR, including responses to comments, was prepared. • On December 8, 2020, the City Council Certified the Final Program EIR for SLVNSP Amendment No. 5, including adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
• No one challenged the Program EIR or Amendment No. 5 and both are now final and beyond challenge.
787
Environmental Process
ADDENDUM TO FINAL PROGRAM EIR FOR AMENDMENT No. 5:
• An Addendum under CEQA is used when there are no significant impacts from project changes. • For the Banning Point Project, an Addendum to the Final EIR for SLVNSP Amendment No. 5 was prepared because the Project proposes a smaller development than that analyzed in the Program EIR, and the Project does not include development of any of the office uses analyzed in the EIR. • The Addendum supports a conclusion that additional environmental review is not required for the Project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the now-final Program 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 Program EIR that was certified and is final.
• The trial court agreed and upheld the City’s use of an Addendum for the Project. • The City Council will be asked to adopt the Addendum should it decide to approve the TPM and DR.

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council adopt City
Council Resolution No. 2024-114:
• Adopting An Addendum Under CEQA and Making Findings in Support Thereof, Including Consistency with the Certified EIR Prepared for Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (SCH #2020029074)
• Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164, allowing the subdivision of approximately 47 gross acres of vacant land into three parcels;
• Affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review No. 21-7008 and denying an appeal of that decision, and permitting the construction of a proposed 619,959 square-foot industrial warehouse building, including 10,000 square feet of office space and a combined 34,000 square feet of retail/commercial buildings, on real property located within the boundaries of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area.
788

THANK YOU & QUESTIONS
Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
[email protected]
Conclusion
789

BANNING POINT
City Council Meeting – July 9, 2024

OPENING REMARKS
JOSH ZEMON – CREATION

DESIGNBUILD
Exhibit C
790
CEQA HEARING + RULING
CEQA HEARING: 3/13/24 – CEQA RULING: 3/15/24
THE COURT RULING:
• Rejected PAG’s claims that Councilmembers Wallace and Sanchez were biased • Rejected PAG’s claims regarding alleged violations of CEQA and the City’s Municipal Code and the State Planning and Zoning Law
◊ Agreed the Addendum approved for the Project and the City’s findings of the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan were valid and supported by substantial evidence
• Does NOT require the City and Real Party to “go back to square one” and begin anew as to the Project approvals nor updating the CEQA Addendum. • Expressly Upheld as Valid the CEQA Addendum and City Council findings ◊ Court Rejected all of PAG’s claims to the contrary
791

PROJECT OVERVIEW
SLVNSP DESIGNATION BANNING POINT PROJECT CONSISTENT?
CHARACTERISTIC BW RS Warehouse Retail
LAND USE Business +
Warehouse Retail + Service Warehouse Retail + Restaurant Pads Yes ALLOWED USES Warehouses Retail + Restaurants Warehouse Retail + Restaurants Yes ACRES 30.22 6.83 30.22 6.83 Yes
FAR (MAXIMUM) 0.55 0.60 0.47 0.11 Yes
ALLOWED AREA (SF) 724,010 37,189 619,959 34,000 Yes
792

PROJECT HISTORY
• TECHNICAL REPORT DATES
• Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, & Health Risk Assessment Memorandum (07/21, updated 02/22)
• Traffic Assessment (11/21, updated 02/22)
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (10/21)
• Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (11/21, updated 02/22) • EIR FOR SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN

AMENDMENT (SPA)
• Certified on December 8, 2020 by Banning City Council • DESIGN REVIEW + TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
• Heard on December 1, 2021 by Banning Planning Commission • PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATES
• Planning Commission Approved: December 1, 2021
• City Council Approval: February 17, 2022
• CEQA HEARING DATE + RULING DATES
• CEQA Hearing: March 13, 2024
• CEQA Ruling: March 15, 2024

KEY POINTS
ITEM CURRENT PROJECT SPA EIR ALTERNATIVE #1 ALTERNATIVE #2 ALTERNATIVE #3 LAND USE Industrial Industrial Residential Office Retail SIZE 620K SF 878K SF 453 units 922K SF 461K SF
TOTAL DAILY TRIPS 1,212 2,958 2,060 8,010 17,058
AIR (PM 10) 12.10 25.60 49.94 55.02 117.06
AIR (PM 2.5) 3.62 7.25 39.02 15.01 31.86
NOISE INCREASE (DBA) < 3 < 3 < 3 3 6 *3 dBA is the significant threshold for noise increases

APPROPRIATE LOCATION APPROPRIATE USE (COMPARED TO RETAIL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL) ECONOMIC BENEFITS • Access to I-10 Freeway
• Adjacent to Railroad
• Traffic – lowest trip generator
• Air Quality – lowest air impact
• Market Demand – labor pool and proximity
to port
• 722 local jobs in Banning
• Impact fees to Banning: $4,119,780
• Annual tax revenue to Banning: $325,000
793
2022 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED: 12/1/21
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED: 2/17/22
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. shall install all landscaping specified for the retail service district pursuant to city approved landscape plans.”
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. the developer
2022
DESIGN

CHANGES
To the right:

Proposed design
changes
794
2022
DESIGN

CHANGES
To the right:

Sun Lakes Village
Drive Detail

CONCLUSION & QUESTIONS
JOSH ZEMON – CREATION

DESIGNBUILD
795

DESIGNBUILD
Bob Agahi
Founding Member
[email protected]
602.400.8898
David Sellers
Founding Member
[email protected]
602.600.6363
Josh Zemon
Principal - Chief Investment Officer
[email protected]
312.286.2601
796

PASS ACTION GROUP PRESENT
07/09/24
. UCEIVED
··-
JUL O 8 2024
Good evening Mr. Mayor, council members, and Staff. We all k ow ; 0m��at we are here tonight. We truly believe that a bias was shown by the former counc1 member representing Banning's District 3, which caused a continuing mindset of some, thinking that we, the Sun Lakes Community (Sun Lakes) and The Lakes Assisted Living and Hospice facility (The Lakes) were raising complaints to stymie growth within District 3, and within the city of Banning as a whole. THAT MINDSET IS INACCURATE!
We are hopeful that tonight as we have this opportunity to express ourselves, we really do understand the responsibilities that you, our local governing council, have, and that we are here in the spirit of cooperation. We expect that any decision you may reach tonight will be done so after careful consideration in a fair and unbiased manner.

Let me take a moment that to express, that our point of contention here tonight is, that our concerns were not able to be fully discussed when the Design Review and tentative map for this project were initially reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and that our contention all along is that this project is not conducive, in it's location and the inherent detriment to the residential communities, immediately adjacent to the proposed warehouse.

We appeal to you, our City Council, to consider these specific issues which includes the following:

The lack of a complete perimeter sound wall, buffering our adjacent Senior communities from all the onsite truck circulation and noise from onsite Warehouse Operations.

No required mandate for quieter, battery powered forklift warehousing equipment.

No required mandate for Auxiliary Power Units at truck dock bays. This mandate would prevent trucks with refrigeration from having to keep their trucks running while on site.

Parking Lot Light Pollution. "The Lakes" would be highly susceptible to this.

Increased Air Pollution, adding to an already impacted Inland Empire Air Basin, having the worst air quality in America, with increased contaminants, creating more Exhibit D
797
pol)ution 6fthe veryair we breathe, in and around the immediately adjacent communities; and with the potential of this project turning into a 24 hour warehouse operation, the impacts to the "The Lakes" and "Sun Lakes", a place that we call home, all of whom are considered sensitive receptors, and could be devastating, without further project mitigations. Many of the residents of "The Lakes" will never move again and will live their final days there.

Let me elaborate on a little history and the cause of our original Appeal, which has really been, just to be able to have input in this process. This results in a community which works together, creating an amiable and healthy relationship.

At the Planning Commission's Dec. 2021 public hearing of the Design Review where our initial attempt to voice our concerns emotions ran extremely high both from citizens and commission members. During this high moment of emotion, a motion was made, and a vote resulted with three ayes to two nays to approve the project.

The Planning Commission clearly did not consider the Health, Welfare and Quality of Life issues, of "The Lakes" or "Sun Lakes" communities, which would all be directly impacted daily.

Please allow me to take another moment tonight, to address and point out the history of Industrial Real Estate development. At this time, warehouse operations are far less desirable, compared to just a few years back. Many warehouse and distribution facilities built on speculation are now sitting empty and unable to be leased, such as the Skechers facility in Banning, recently constructed, occupied and now vacant! The Beaumont/Banning Pass area Industrial warehouse vacancy rate is now ( 5) times higher than it was in the first quarter of 2021, according to Coldwell Banker/ Richard Ellis (CBRE), when it was 0.9%. It is now at a 4.8% vacancy rate. Currently the Beaumont/Banning Pass area has 458,000 vacant square feet and 1,759,000 available square feet of Industrial warehouse space.

There appears to be an imbalance between the supply and demand. As we have seen so many times in the past, the "current" HOT development projects in demand yesterday, end up being built to a point of excess capacity, well beyond the markets' ability to absorb those that have been built. The current market for these massive warehouse/logistics facilities is highly saturated, The case in point is the 1.8 million sq. ft. warehouse complex recently constructed, at Cherry Valley Blvd. off Interstate 10. It now remains unoccupied for over a year.

This begs the question of the economic benefit to the citizens of Banning should 798
Banning Point remain vacant? Especially, a speculatively constructed warehouse with no identified tenant. What is the likelihood the Banning Point project, once started, will be completed and if completed, will remain vacant? Would a vacant warehouse building become a nuisance as other vacant buildings in the city, drawing crime, un-housed individuals, vandalism, and property value depreciations? What is the downside impacts to the city in the event the project is not completed, or completed and remains unoccupied? Will this affect Banning's ability to grow and attract future businesses that legitimately provide a tax base for a healthy community to flourish and grow?
My reference to the project "not completed", also refers to the potential of the retail commercial buildings not being built, because of the Tentative Map and the separation of the projects 4 7 acres into 3 parcels, which gives the developer the ability to sell off the separated parcel, where the ( 6) commercial retail buildings are proposed and might not ever be built! No jobs and No tax revenue! Nothing in the Conditions of Approval requires these perfectly acceptable, buildings to be constructed, which results in nothing between the "Sun Lakes" and the loading docks of the warehouse, except for some landscaping; and we contend that is not a legitimate buffer, from all the trucking onsite noise, light spill etc.

Another case in point! The World Logistics Center, located along the 60 Freeway, at the eastern end of Moreno Valley, where the Skechers warehouse anchors that Center, and where the facility has a fully automated 3 story high conveyor system, throughout the interior of the warehouse building, which moves all the products, reducing the need for manpower. With this technology and ever expanding (AI), Artificial Intelligence processing and automation, these warehouse jobs are showing a much lower employee to facility square foot ratio than anyone could have anticipated. So, in all actuality, will there be an acceptable tradeoff of the impacts, versus limited "Good Paying Jobs"?
There has also been a lot of misleading and erroneous information about the "Good Paying Jobs" and tax revenue benefits to the city, but nothing about the adverse position the city will face, should the project not be fully completed, or remain vacant! This will result in No jobs and No tax revenue! Also, consider the reality of warehousing worker employment, and the high demands on employees and job turnover rates, due to burnout of employees, for these types of jobs. This Industry is very, very taxing on its employees. 799
An LA Times article reported October 251h, 2023, that Amazon Inc. US warehouse workers were surveyed and found that 69% of the nation's workers stayed home without pay to recover from pain or exhaustion, and that 34% had done so, (3) or more times.

The article continues, and states that employees also suffered work related mental health issues, where more than half of those surveyed reported feeling "burned out." The portion of workers reporting burnout increases with job tenure. Overall, 41 % of workers reported being injured while working at an Amazon warehouse, and that rises to 51 % for those who have worked at the company for more than three years.

The harder it is for a worker to maintain the pace of work, the more likely it is they are injured on the job. This could relate to Banning residents on unemployment or disability.

Let me go into the tax revenue issues that are especially important to any city. As we all know the main populace in the area around The Project is "Sun Lakes." There are 3327 homes and condominiums within Sun Lakes. I would like you all to recognize that a wholesale loss of value in these homes will directly affect the City of Banning and Riverside County. With the 3327 homes in Sun Lakes that equates to over ONE BILLION DOLLARS ... YES BILLIONS WITH "B". The city's portion of property tax revenue will be directly affected with lower values of homes less desirability created by the Project will lead to empty homes.

Hopefully, I have pointed out some of our specific issues of contention, as you reconsider this project and your responsibilities to the Community. This project as proposed will have a tremendous negative effect on Banning residents. We respectfully ask that the Council grant our appeal and deny the project or direct the Planning Commission under the interim or new Community Development Director to consider alternatives or improvements to the project before taking any further steps toward approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
800
FIGURES I INLAND EMPIRE INDUSTRIAL I 01 2024
- . . ----

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
City of Banning
Citv Clerk's Office
Mega-deals surge despite softening among
some size tranches

5.9% -964K SF 20.4M SF Vacancy Rate SF Net Absorptron SF Under Construction ti! ·c.: 'r·r ·r ~ ]'" I j ' 1 pr-'- ·1u· lJdlfl.

Executive Summary
Five deals 1 million sq. ft. and above were signed in 01 2024. In 2023, only seven deals 1 mi llion sq. ft. and above were signed for the entire year. The increase in mega-leasing was facilitated by the increased availability through new development and recent move-outs, with four of the five leases being new deals.

Net absorption turned negative for the second time in the last 12 months as spaces stayed on market for longer due to softening demand. Negative net absorption was isolated to the Inland Empire (IE) East, while the IE West realized 2 million sq. ft. in positive net absorption.

Lease rates fell quarter-over-quarter to $1.36 NNN per sq. ft. per month in 01 2024 from $1.49 per sq. ft. per month in 04 2023. Year-over-year, rates decreased $0.15 from $1.51 NNN per sq. ft. per month in 01 2023.

Sublease space increased quarter-over-quarter to 18.5 million sq. ft., with over 80% of sublease space located in 250,000 sq. ft. and above buildings.

Space under construction remained largely static quarter-over-quarter as development starts kept pace with new deliveries. 17% of space under construction was pre-leased.

CBRE RESEARCH
$1.36
PSF/MO/NNN Lease Rate
FIGURE 1: IE Core Available Space Distribution by Sq. Ft.

Source CBRE Research, 01 2024
■ 10,000-99,999
■ 100,000-249,999
■ 250,000-499,999
500,000+
CBRE
<.,> 2024 CBRE. INC
801
FIGURES I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024
Market Overview
The Inland Empire industrial market experienced both a continuation of negative trends from 2023 and a divergence from the slowing activity and lackluster sales transactions that occurred the past year. Vaca ncy increased 70 basis points (bps) quarter-over-quarter to 5.9% while sublease space increased to over 18.5 million sq. ft. Similarly, net absorption turned negative for the second time in a year as the recent surge in new leasing activity could not overcome occupiers vacating spaces. However, activity increased in 01 2024, with 10.2 mi ll ion sq. ft. being newly leased and another 418,000 sq. ft. transacting in user sales across the IE. Rates slipped as landlords were poised to secure the next deal on the market. The 8% decrease in rents quarterover-quarter to $1.36 NNN per sq. ft. per month in 01 2024 began the realignment of the IE as an afforda ble market when compared to others in Southern California. The development outlook remained largely static as new deliveries and new starts corresponded to little change in the square footage under construction. The dearth of new development coupled with rates declining set the expectation of improving fundamenta ls moving into the rest of 2024.

UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemployment in the Inland Empire increased to 5.5% in February 2024, up 110 bps from that of February 2023. The California unemployment rate increased to 5.3% in February, an increase of 10 bps month-over-month while the United States unemployment rate increased at 3.9% in February, an increase of 20 bps month-over-month. Tra nsportation, utilities, and manufacturing jobs decreased by 5,100 from January 2024 to February 2024, whi le construction jobs increased by 200 bps in the same period.

LEASE RATE ANALYSIS
Taking lease rates in the IE Core fell by $0.15 quarter-over-quarter to $1.36 NNN per sq. ft. per month in 01 2024. Lease rates in t he IE West fell by $0.07 quarter-over-quarter to $1.44 NNN per sq. ft. per mont h, and lease rates in the IE East fell by $0.27 quarter-over-quarter to $1.20 NNN per sq. ft. per month. With increased competition among landlords to secure the next deal and the average age of leased spaces in the IE East fa lling from 2008 in 04 2023 to 2003 in 01 2024, taking rates returned to levels more in li ne with historical expectations. Free rent, early occupancy, and moving allowances increased in 01 2024 to entice occupiers to commit to new spaces.

CBRE RESEARCH
FIGURE 2: Unemployment Rate(%)
- Inland Empire --California - United States

18.0 16.0

14.0 12.0

10.0 8.0

6.0 4.0

2.0 0.0 0)
0 N
_,.
0 0
N
0 N
5 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 N N N
N <'l _,. 0 0 0
Source LS Bureau of Labor Stat1st1cs. 0 1202L.

N N 0 0 N N
5 N
0 FIGURE 3: Average Taking Lea se Rate ($PSF/M0/NNN)

1.60 1.40

1.20 1.00

0.80 0.60

0.40 0.20

0.00 0
N
0 N
5 0
N
0 N
N
0 0
N
0 N
(")
0 Source CBRE Research, 01 2024
0 N
0 N
_,.
0 N N N 0 0 0 N N N
5 N
0 "' 0
N N 0 0 N N
<'l _,. 0 0
N
0 N
_,.
0 N
N
0 N
5 N
N
0 N
5 N
N
0 N
N
0 N
N
0 N
N
0 N
N
0 N
(")
0 N
N
0 N
(")
0 N
N
0 N
_,.
0 N
N
0 N
_,.
0 (")
N
0 N
5 <'l
N
0 N
5 (")
N
0 N
N
0 "' N
0 N
N
0 <'l
N
0 N
(")
0 "' N
0 N
(")
0 (")
N
0 N
_,.
0 (")
N
~ _,.
0 _,.

N
0 N
5 _,.

N
0 N
5 <\;1 2024 CBRE. INC
802
FIGURES I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024

VACANCY & AVAILABILITY
The trend of rising vacancy since 03 2022 continued in 01 2024 as vacancy increased to 5.9%.

Vacancy increased due to 3.8 million sq. ft. of new construction delivering vacant and available spaces' time on market growing, leading to spaces being vacated by occupiers without a new tenant replacing them. Avai lability increased by 140 bps to 9.5% quarter-over-quarter. Within the 9.5% availability rate, 2.8% was sublease space with over 18.5 million sq. ft. of sublease space available in 01 2024. The IE led all U.S. markets in available sublease space as the COVID-19 industrial surge left occupiers with more space than was necessary as the economy moved towards normalization.

NET ABSORPTION & ACTIVITY
Net absorption turned negative for only the third time in 15 years with 3 million sq. ft. going vacant in the IE East and 2 million sq. ft. being newly absorbed in the IE West. The IE North realized 150,000 sq. ft. of negative net absorption. The positive net absorption in the IE West was driven by 1 million sq. ft. deals in Ontario and Fontana along with 960,000 of positive net absorption in Jurupa Valley and Chino from large and mid-sized new deals. In the IE East, new vacancies in Redlands, Rialto, and San Bernardino led to over 3 million sq. ft. of negative absorption in the submarket. Retail and distribution occupiers led the negative absorption, whi le e-commerce and 3PL's drove positive absorption in 01 2024.

DEVELOPMENT
There was 20.4 million sq. ft. under construction at the end of 01 2024, up 200,000 sq. ft. from 04 2023. The IE saw 4.6 million sq. ft. delivering and 4.8 million sq. ft. of new projects breaking ground in the first quarter. The IE West ended 01 2024 with·13 million sq. ft. under construction and the IE East ended the quarter with 7.4 million sq. ft. under construction. The average size of the projects in the IE West was 230,000 sq. ft. whereas the average size in the IE East was 164,000 sq. ft., signaling that developers were still able to find land in the IE West for large projects. Pre-leasing rates fell to 17% in 01 2024 from 22% in 04 2023 due to the pre-leased delivery of 8900 Merrill in Ontario at 1.2 million sq. ft. The dwindling development pipeline will likely not satiate future demand, especially in the 500,000 and above size ra nge. If demand increases as expected in the second half of 2024, the lack of new development wi ll drive down vacancy and supply.

CBRE RESEARCH
FIGURE 4: Availability Rate(%)

12.0 10.0

8.0 6.0

4.0 2.0

0.0 0
N
0 N
5 0 0 N N
0 0 N N
N M
0 0
Soorce CBRE Research. 012024
0 N
0 N
~
0 FIGURE 5: Gross Activity (MSF)
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 0
N
0 N
5 0 0 N N 0 0 N N
N M
0 0
Source CBRE Research. 012024
0 N
0 N
~
0 - IE East - IE West - overall
;;;
0 N
5 ;;;
0 N
5 ;;; ;;; ;;; N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N (") ~ 5 N (") ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
IE East - IE West - Rolling 40 Avg
"' 0
N
N
0 ;;;
0 N
M
0 ;;;
0 N
~
0 N
N
0 N
5 N
N
0 N
N
0 N
N
0 N
(")
0 N
N
0 N
~
0 M
N
0 N
5 M
N
0 N
5 M
N
0 N
N
0 M
N
0 N
N
0 M
N
0 N
M
0 M
N
0 N
(")
0 M
N
0 N
~
0 (")
N
~
~
0 ~
N
0 N
5 ~
N
0 N
5 @ 2024 CBRE. INC
803
FIGURES I INLAND EMPIRE I 0 1 2024

MARKET OUT LOOK
Continued economic growth paired with the Fed signaling more accommodative policy all suggests the U.S. economy is heading toward a 'soft landing'. GDP growth should be less than half 2023's pace when growth topped 3%. Reasons for the slowdown include a more prudent consumer and much weaker hiring. This latter issue is most acute within interest rate sensitive sectors, such as tech startups and goods manufactu ring. Notable exceptions include investment in EV and microchip production capacity.

More caution from busi nesses means a good chunk of recent hiring came from publicly funded sectors (e.g., education, healthcare, state & loca l government s). A key exception is leisure and hospital ity, driven by continued demand for discretionary services. With many private firms on t he sidelines, the job openings rate declined to 5.5% from its peak of 7.8% in 2022. This has also meant the pace of wage growth has cooled, but not enough to see inflation fall quickly to 2%.

With unemployment remaining below 4% and high-capacity
utilization, CPI is unlikely to return to target until 2025.

The Fed wi ll li kely make three, 25 basis point cuts this year. This outlook is putting downward pressure on longer-term rate expectations, providing some optimism for real estate capital markets, but the recovery wi ll only begin after the first cut is actually delivered. Better t han expected growth over the last 18 months has been helpful in holding real estate vacancy down, notably in the industrial, retail and mu ltifamily sectors.

The Inland Empire remains one of the premier industrial markets in the United States. The proximity to the San Pedro Bay port complex, abundant labor, and consumer centers underline the strong IE fundamentals. As the lamer economy heads towards normalization, the IE wil l continue to be the best option for large occupiers looking for space in Southern California.
4 CBRE RESEARCH
FIGURE 6: Market Statistics
Bldg. Submarket Sq. Ft.

Inland Empire East 301,832.710
Inland Empire West 34 7.012.893
Inland Empire Core 648,845,603
Inland Empire North 23,553,978
Inland Empire Total 672,399,581
Source CBRE Research 0 1 2024
FIGURE 7: Key Transactions
Occupier
Confidential"
Confidential
Lowe's Home Improvement
Confidential
us LO!;JiStics
Overall
Vacancy
(%)

6.9 5.1

5.9 7.0

6.0 Industry Sector
Manufacturing
E-commerce
Retail
E-commerce
Logistics
·tnd1cates Rene\·.al Source CBRE Resea,ch. 01202➔
FIGURE 8: Availability and Taking Lease Rate
Availability
(%)

9.9 9.2

9.5 7.1

9.4 Availability(%)
10 Availability Rate(%) (L)
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
0 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0 0
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 N N N N 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N 6 0 M .., 6 0 M .., 6 N M .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source CBRE Research 01 2024
012024 012024 Under
Net Absorption Gross Activity Construction
(SF) (SF) (SF)
(3,040.948) 3,109.297 7.443,004

2.077.195 7,538.642 13,006.105
(963,753) 10,647,939 20,449,109
(150.000) 0 0
(1,113,753) 10,647,939 _ 20,449,109
Location
Inland Empire East
Inland Empire West
Inland Empire East
Inland Empire West
Inland Empire West
--Lease Rate ($PSF/MO/NNN) (R)
N N N N N N N N M N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N 6 0 M .., 6 0 M .., 0 0 0 0 6
Construction Avg. Taking
Deliveries YT D Lease Rates
M
N
0 N
N
0 (SF) ($PSF/MO/NNN)

1.656.474 $1.20

2.938.902 $1.44
4,595,376 $1.36
0 $0.93
4 ,595,376 $1.36
Total Sq. Ft.

1.686,590

1.025.132

1.018,178

1.003.918
1,003.567
($PSF/M0/N NN)

1.60 M
N
0 N
M
0 M
N
0 N
..,
0 ..,
N
0 N
6 1.40

1.20 1.00

0.80 0.60

0.40 0.20

0.00 © 2024 CBRE, INC.
804
5 FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE INDUSTRIAL I 01 2024
FIGURE 1: Historical Gross Activity (MSF)
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 .., "' 0 0 N N
Source· CBRE Research. 01 202L.
(!)
0 N
■ IE East ■ IE West
,-.. 00 0,
~ ~ 0
N
FIGURE 3: Historical Availability & Sublease Availability 0 N
0 N
N
0 N
- Availabi lity SF - Sublease Availability SF
- - - - - -- -~- - -
N
N
0 N
(")
N
0 N
- -
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0 I ''
11 r r 17 1 d}.:-i i----- 00 00 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N (") (") (") 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source CBRE Research, 01 2024

CBRE RESEARCH

0..,
f- N
>- 0 N
-
-
.,
-11
M .., N N 0 0 N N ..,
0 0
CBRE
FIGURE 2: Overall Vacancy(%)
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0 00 00 00 00 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N (") (") (") (") .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: CBRE Research. 0120 24
FIGURE 4: Historical Availability Rate(%)
■ IE East IE West
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 00 00 00 00 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N (") (") (") (") .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 N (") .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source CBRE Research 01 2024
Ce> 2024 CBRE, INC
805
FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE I 0 12024
FIGURE 5: Annual TEU's (II of Containers)
Port of Los Angeles ■ Port of Long Beach
25 20
15 10
5 0
0 N
N
~
M
0 N " 0
N
"' 0
N
S01 rces POLBcorn °ortofLosA'1gelesorg Febru-Jry 2024
FIGURE 7: Under Construction (MSF)
45 40
<O r-- "' ~ 0
N 0
N
CJ)
0 N
fl
0 N
N
0 N
35 n rlnf1 r- 30
ji ~ H H H H
~ ~ ~ ~
0 CJ) CJ) CJ) CJ) 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N M
0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N M " 5 N M " 5 N M " 5 N M " a a a 5 a a a a a a a a a Scarce CBRE Research. 01 2024

CBRE RESEARCH
N
N
0 N
-
H
~
M
N
0 N
N
a
I-
~
M
N
0 N
M
a
M
N
0 N
~
M
N
0 N
a "
0 "
~~
I-
" N
0 N
5 FIGURE 6: Monthly Total TEU Activity(# of Containers) Port of Los Angeles ■ Port of Long Beach

2.5 2.0

1.5 10

0.5 0.0
0 N
0 N
Source CBRE Resear.:h 01202-.

N
0 N
FIGURE 8: Historical Completed Construction (MSF)
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 CJ)
0 0
N
0 0
N ~
Source CBRi:. Research 01 202<+
N M
0 " N 0
N ~ "' 0 N
<O
0 N
N
N
0 N
r-- "' CJ)
0 0 0 N N N
M
N
0 N
0 N
0 N " N
N 0 0 N N
M
N
0 N
~ 0
N
" N
0 N
0 f-
>-
cc;, 2024 CBRE. INC.
806
FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024
FIGURE 9: Indust rial Market Statistics by City

U/CBLDG U/CBLDG
1STOTR 1STOTR AVG
CITY BLDG. BLDG VACANT VACANCY AVAIL AVAIL NO. SOFT NO. SO.FT. GROSS 2024 GROSS 2024NET NET TAKING LEASE COUNT SO.FT. COUNT SO. FT. SO.FT. RATE SO.FT. RATE SALES SOLD LEASES LEASED ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ABSORP. ABSORP. RATE(NNN) -- Banning/Beaumont 63 9,556,230 0 0 458,704 4.8 1,759,346 18.4 0 0 1 57,253 57,253 57,253 57,253 57,253 $0.00 Colton 120 8,890,982 1 417,809 374,673 4.2 984,470 11.1 2 37,940 0 0 37,940 37,940 0 0 $0.00 Corona/Norco 713 33,560,089 2 203,823 2,552,912 7.6 3,580,607 10.7 2 75,618 4 165,257 240,875 240,875 76,274 76,274 $1.43 Moreno Valley 103 33,493,816 7 233,443 1,111,088 3.3 1,691,544 5.1 0 0 2 148,212 148,212 148,212 28,212 28,212 $0.00 Perris 164 41,716,788 11 2,597,143 3,859,173 9.3 5,477,673 13.1 1 43,298 3 1,147,726 1,191,024 1,191,024 (314,587) (314,587) $1.23 Redlands/ Loma Linda 186 30,436,069 1 363,039 3,339,249 11.0 4,269,307 14.0 1 21,228 3 224,582 245,810 245,810 (1,058,289) (1,058,289) $1.13 Rialto/Bloomington 239 40,790,737 8 1,649,660 2,764,719 6.8 4,016,826 9.8 0 0 1 25,680 25,680 25,680 (1,153,639) (1,153,639) $0.95 Ri verside 780 58,067,349 10 834,241 2,611,674 4.5 3,819,441 6.6 2 24,800 7 537,324 562,124 562,124 87,894 87,894 $1.12 San Bernardino 408 45,320,650 5 1,143,846 3,705,343 8.2 4,138,256 9.1 1 46,775 3 553,604 600,379 600,379 (764,066) (764,066) $1.16 Inland Empire East 2,776 301,832,710 45 7,443,004 20,777,535 6.9 29,737,470 9.9 9 249,659 24 2,859,638 3,109,297 3,109,297 (3,040,948) (3,040,948) $1.20 Chino/Chino Hills 648 56,004,184 6 504,017 1,470,080 2.6 3,713,143 6.6 1 13,598 16 1,127,015 1,140,613 1,140,613 315,284 315,284 $1.44 Fontana 592 75,985,924 16 5.882,448 3,609,975 4.8 6,661,238 8.8 2 29,179 3 1,032,307 1,061,486 1,061,486 987,029 987,029 $1.38 Juruea Valley/Eastvale 297 48,335,761 7 542,531 3,608,375 7.5 5,413,228 11.2 0 0 7 1,844,762 1,844,762 1,844,762 651,071 651,071 $1.50 Ontario/Montclair/Ueland 1,240 122,298,625 24 5,729,361 7,058,620 5.8 11,598,621 9.5 2 26,921 36 3,158,265 3,185,186 3,185,186 97,415 97,415 $1.37 Rancho Cucamonga 606 44,388,399 4 347,748 1,956,420 4.4 4,634,736 10.4 1 98,685 5 207,910 306,595 306,595 26,396 26,396 $1.41 Inland Emeire West 3,383 347,012,893 57 13,006,105 17,703,470 5.1 32,020,966 9.2 6 168,383 67 7,370,259 7,538,642 7,538,642 2,077,196 2,077,195 $1.44 INLAND EMPIRE CORE 6,159 648,845,603 102 20,449,109 38,481,005 5.9 61,758,436 9.5 15 418,042 91 10,229,897 10,647,939 10,647,939 (963,763) (963,753) $1.36 Adelanto 101 4,349,348 0 0 445,500 10.2 464,750 10.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 A[>[>le Valley 24 3,266,548 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 Barstow 15 571,828 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 Heseeria 69 5,349,139 0 0 683,133 12.8 683,133 12.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 (150,000) (150,000) $0.00 Victorvi lle 78 10,017,115 0 0 528,892 5.3 528,892 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.93 Inland Empire North 287 23,553,978 0 0 1,657,525 7.0 1,676,776 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (150,000) (150,000) $0,93 INLAND EMPIRE + IEN 6,446 672,399,581 102 20,449,109 40,138,530 6.0 63,435,211 9.4 15 418,042_ ~ 10,229,897 10,647,939_ J().~_7~939_ (1,113,753) (1,113,763) $1.36 Source CBRE Research 01 2024
7 CBRE RESEARCH cei 2024 CBRE. INC.
807
FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024
FIGURE 10: Industrial Market Statistics by Building Size Range· BUILDING SIZE RANGE BLDG. BLDG U/C U/C VACANT VACANCY AVAIL AVAIL NO. SOFT NO. SOFT 1ST OTR TOTAL 2024GROSS NEWTO AVG TAKING BLDG. BLDG (SO, FT,) COUNT SOFT COUNT SOFT SOFT RATE SOFT RATE SALES SOLD LEASES LEASED ACTIVITY ACTIVITY MARKET RENT 10,000-19,999 948 13,096,450 2 28,724 202,118 15 424,173 3.2 3 36,500 3 40,651 77,151 77,151 748,945 $110 20,000-29,999 411 9,799,162 5 124,012 240.855 2.5 532,391 5.4 3 73,225 0 0 73,225 73,225 155,657 $0.00 30,000-39,999 232 7,899,290 2 75,534 187,252 2.4 395,962 5.0 0 0 2 57,960 57,960 57,960 180,323 $110 40,000-49,999 175 7,768,214 5 222,191 551,231 7.1 769,877 9.9 3 139,934 5 123,685 263,619 263,619 110,400 $126 50,000-59,999 132 7,088,788 2 706,360 522,964 7.4 599,404 8.5 0 0 2 69,762 69,762 69,762 57,427 $0.00 60,000-69,999 78 5,005,026 3 787,945 257,697 5.1 384,281 7.7 0 0 2 124,911 124,911 124,911 126,584 $1.50 70,000-79,999 80 5,950,089 1 71,415 582,270 9.8 772,364 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 80,000-89,999 51 4,258,794 3 244,766 214,803 5.0 505,027 11.9 0 0 1 39,114 39,114 39,114 157,647 $0.00 90,000-99,999 43 4,074,581 3 296,618 354,032 8.7 354,032 8.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 100,000-249,999 320 48,802,802 6 926,491 5,713,146 11.7 7,411,117 15.2 0 0 5 480,113 480,113 480,113 633,451 $112 250,000-499,999 149 53,800,373 11 3,760,705 5,522,006 10.3 9,173,191 17.1 0 0 3 905,264 905,264 905,264 2,555,026 $120 500,000 and greater 157 134,289,141 2 1,398,243 6,429,161 4.8 8,415,651 6.3 0 0 1 1,018,178 1,018,178 1,018,178 1,229,900 $0.00 INLAND EMPIRE EAST 2,n6 301,832,710 45 7,443,004 20,7n,535 6.9 29,737,470 9.9 9 249,659 24 2,859,638 3,109.297 3,109,297 5,355,360 $1.20 10,000-19,999 1,072 14,672,932 2 32,552 291,125 2.0 481,817 3.3 5 69,698 12 159,748 229,446 229,446 146,616 $135 20,000-29,999 490 11,925,975 3 69,998 670,769 5.6 1,011,077 8.5 0 0 5 109,838 109,838 109,838 300,802 $1.58 30,000-39,999 280 9,654,600 6 213,908 300,281 3.1 715,127 7.4 0 0 6 212,583 212,583 212,583 335,569 $160 40,000-49,999 190 8,386,657 5 230,281 358,390 4.3 685,747 8.2 0 0 4 158,171 158,171 158,171 311,011 $139 50,000-59,999 160 8,619,160 5 294,007 143,105 17 382,077 4.4 0 0 5 117,820 117,820 117,820 89,036 $135 60,000-69,999 107 6,798,922 2 126,659 327,453 4.8 552,503 8.1 0 0 4 163,770 163,770 163,770 52,632 $130 70,000-79,999 67 5,018,802 0 0 270,064 5.4 408,504 8.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 138,440 $0.00 80,000-89,999 65 5,489,582 3 254,182 407,688 7.4 491,238 8.9 0 0 2 27,699 27,699 27,699 59,336 $140 90,000-99,999 68 6,458,890 3 290,794 700,268 10.8 819,297 12.7 1 98,685 1 12,741 111,426 111,426 99,425 $0.00 100,000-249,999 512 78,784,058 12 2,057,527 6,340,098 8.0 9,141,261 11.6 0 0 22 2,386,309 2,386,309 2,386,309 2,567,473 $140 250,000-499,999 245 87,425,571 9 2,551,010 4,098,219 4.7 6,924,087 7.9 0 0 3 988,963 988,963 988,963 1,823,381 $125 500,000 and great er 127 103,777,744 7 6,885,187 3,796,010 3.7 10,408,231 10.0 0 0 3 3,032,617 3,032,617 3,032,617 4,139,713 $132 INLAND EMPIRE WEST 3,383 347,012,J193 57 13,006,105 17,703,470 5.1 32,020,966 9.2 6 168,383 67 7,370,259 7,538,642 7,538,642 10,063,434 $1.44 INLAND EMPIRE CORE 61159 64818451603 102 2014491109 3!:4811005 5.9 6117581436 9.5 15 4181042 91 1012291897 1016471939 1016471939 1514181794 $1.36 'Does not include Inland Empire North Source: CBRE Research. 01 2024. 8 CBRE RESEARCH (" 2024 CBRE, INC.
808
FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024
Market Area Overview
Contacts
Rick Cozart
Senior Field Research Analys
Inland Empire
nck.cozart11@cbre com
Inland Empire East
Arl,,
DeepaShah
Research Manager
Orange County. Inland Empire
deepa shah@cbre com
Definitions
Avai lable Sq. Ft.: Space in a building, ready for occupancy within six months; can be occupied or vacant. Availability Rate: Total Available Sq. Ft. divided by the total Bui lding Area. Building Area: The total floor area sq. ft. of the building, typically taken at the "drip line" of the building. Gross Activity: All user sales, pre-leased, and new lease transactions completed within a specified time period. Excludes investment sale transactions and lease renewals. Gross Lease Rate: Rent typically includes real property taxes, building insurance, and major maintenance. Net Absorption: The change in Occupied Sq. Ft. from one period to the next. New to Market: Available space added to the market during the specified quarter. Occupied Sq. Ft.: Building Area not considered vacant Vacancy Rate: Total Vacant Sq. Ft. divided by the total Building Area. Vacant Sq. Ft.: Space that can be occupied within 30 days. Average Taking Rent:

The first-year base rent (NNN), not including property taxes, insurance and maintenance. Inland Empire Core:

Includes the Inland Empire West and Inland Empire East submarket s which make up the original Inland Empire market and Out of Submarket cities of Upland and Montclair. Inland Empire Total: Includes Inland Empire West, Inland Empire East and Inland Empire North (Hesperia, Barstow. Victorville, Apple Valley. and Adelanto).

Survey Criteria
Includes all industrial buildings 10,000 sq. ft. and greater in size in the Inland Empire. Buildings which have begun construction as evidenced by site excavation or foundation work. «· Copyright 202Li AH r'.ghts reserved. Information contained he1ein. including prnjectlons. has been obtained from sources believed to be re:iable. but has not been verified for accuracy 01 completeness. CBRL Inc. makes no guarantee, warranty 0/ representation about it. Any 1e1;ance on such information is so:ely at your own risk. This information is exclusively for use by CBRE clients and p1ofessionals and may not be reproduced without the prior written permission of CBREs Global Chief Economist. CBRE 809

SHUTE MIHALY
w E I B E R G E R LLP
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
July 9, 2024 RECEIVED
Via Electronic Mail Only
Mayor Alberto Sanchez
Members of the City Council
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sandra Calderon
JUL O 9 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
Development Project Coordinator
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Banning City Council July 9, 2024 Agenda Items 6.2 and 7.1:

Appeal and proposed reapproval of Banning Point Project (Tentative Map No. 38164 and Design Review No. 21-7008) Dear Mayor Sanchez, Council Members, and Ms. Calderon:

This firm represents Pass Action Group in connection with the proposed Banning Point warehouse project referenced above (the "Project"). These comments supplement the presentations and additional comments Pass Action Group representatives will be providing at the City Council hearing on the Project.

The Project before you is substantively the same as the project you unlawfully approved in February 2022 by way of Resolution No. 2022-14. The proposed findings in Draft Resolution No. 2024-114 and in the proposed Conditions of Approval attached to the resolution are largely identical, with certain important exceptions discussed below. The staff report does not identify any changes to the 2022 Addendum prepared in an attempt to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), nor are any changes identified to the technical rep01is, responses to comments, or other documents presented in February 2022. We assume there are no relevant changes and that the applicant is relying on the same supporting documents. 1 1 Accordingly, Pass Action Group's prior comment letters regarding this Project, submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2021 and early 2022, are incorporated by reference.
810
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

As discussed below, and as will be further elaborated at the hearing, the Proj e.~{ as-w@~o,sed r. ijcl ins fundamentally incompatible with nearby existing uses, inc.luaing-·'J:h 't akes'aS'sisted living/memory care facility and the Sun Lakes residential community. Moreover, the City has not corrected the errors identified in Pass Action Group's litigation challenging approval of this project, which remains pending in the Court of Appeal. 2 • I ' {.,
Pass Action Group respectfully asks that the City Council (1) grant the appeal and deny approval of Design Review No. 21-7008; (2) deny approval of Tentative Map No. 38164; and (3) return this proposal to the Planning Commission and staff for consideration of development alternatives appropriate for this location.

I. The City has failed to correct errors that remain at issue in Pass Action Group's appeal of the Superior Court's decision.

The staff report and Draft Resolution No. 2024-114 note that the Riverside Superior Court ruled against Pass Action Group on certain issues raised in the litigation against this Project. However, neither the staff report nor the draft resolution acknowledges that Pass Action Group has appealed the Superior Court's decision. The concerns underlying Pass Action Group's appeal are thus not only still at issue in the courts, but also have become even more acute as the City moves toward approval of the massive Sunset Crossroads development just one-half mile from the Project.

A. The City has failed to address the cumulative noise and air quality impacts of this Project in conjunction with those of Sunset Crossroads.

Reconsideration provides the City with another opportunity to consider the cumulative noise and air quality impacts of the Banning Point Project in connection with the impacts of the Sunset Crossroads project. Unfortunately, it appears that the City has again chosen not to address this issue, despite the fact that the City's approach remains unlawful.

It is now beyond dispute that the City has never squarely addressed the cumulative air quality and noise impacts of truck traffic from these two closely related projects. Indeed, the Superior Court specifically found that the Program Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village No11h Specific Plan 2 Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, et al. (Fourth Dist. Div. 2 No. E083868).

SI I UTE M IH ALY
'- \XI E I N B E R G E R LI P
811
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

("PEIR") and the Addendum for the Banning Point Project "do not analyze the cumulative impact of the Project and Sunset Crossroads."3 Sunset Crossroads is both foreseeable and well-defined enough to permit cumulative impacts analysis. The Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report are now complete.4 The City and the applicant can no longer claim Sunset Crossroads is merely speculative.

Like the findings adopted in 2022, the findings proposed in Draft Resolution No. 2024-114 state that Banning Point Project trucks will use the planned Sun Lakes Boulevard extension to access I-10 at Sunset Avenue. 5 Appendix J-2 of the Sunset Crossroads Draft EIR anticipates that Sunset Crossroads trucks also will use Sun Lakes Boulevard to access I-10 at Highland Springs.6 The appendix further states that the City does not plan to install any physical barriers to trucks using Sun Lakes Boulevard between Sunset Crossroads and Highland Springs. 7
It is therefore clearly foreseeable that heavy-duty trucks from both projects will be rolling through the heart of the Sun Lakes residential community in both directions once the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is complete. Yet the City still refuses to address the cumulative effect of Banning Point and Sunset Crossroads truck traffic on Sun Lakes Boulevard. In 2022, the applicant's consultant did not dispute that the PEIR and the Addendum for the Banning Point Project never analyzed impacts of trucks on Sun Lakes Boulevard east of the project at all; instead, the analysis incorrectly and 3 Ruling on Submitted Matter- Petition for Writ of Mandate/Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, et al. (Riverside Super. Ct. No.

CVRI2201482, March 15, 2024) ("Trial Court Order") at 6. 4 Both documents are available at https://banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-SpecificPlan. 5 Draft Res. No. 2024-114 at 10, 18, 21.
6 Evatt, Arie and So, Charlene, Urban Crossroads, Sunset Crossroads Traffic Analysis (June 15, 2023) at 61 (Phase IA), 67 (Phase 3), 69 (Phase 4), available at https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13828/ App-J-2-T A-Report 6-2023 . 7 Id. at 60.

S I I UT I~ ['v1 I l-1 1\ LY

1..., \X/l: I NBl:: RGl:: R uP
812
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

misleadingly assumed 100% of the Project's truck traffic would access I-10 via Highland Springs Avenue. 8
Staffs proposed finding that subsequent environmental review is not required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 thus remains unsupported by substantial evidence. The City's continuing failure to address this issue violates both CEQA and its fundamental responsibility to protect the health and safety of Banning's residents from the combined impacts of multiple warehouse projects.

B. The City's findings of approval remain unsupported.

Pass Action Group 's litigation challenged the City's findings of approval for both the tentative map and design review. The findings repeatedly relied on an unsupp011ed and demonstrably untrue factual asse11ion: that the proposed retail and commercial buildings would "screen and buffer" the proposed warehouse from the large residential community to the south. It is undisputed that nothing in the Sun Lakes North Specific Plan or the proposed Project requires the retail and commercial buildings to be constructed contemporaneously with the warehouse-or even requires their construction at all. The retail and commercial buildings thus cannot serve as a "screen and buffer," and the City's proposed findings to the contrary remain without evidentiary support. This issue remains live in Pass Action Group's pending appeal.

Pass Action Group also challenged the City's decision to allow heavy duty trucks to use Sun Lakes Boulevard notwithstanding that Sun Lakes Boulevard is not designated as a truck route in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. This issue also remains live on appeal.

II. The City's proposed findings fail to comply with state law and the Banning Municipal Code.

Draft Resolution 2024-114 is mostly identical to the City's prior Resolution 2022-14, but not entirely. The new draft resolution omits findings regarding compliance 8 See Bill Lawson, P.E., Urban Crossroads, Letter to Adam Rush Re: (Design Review 21- 7008 & Tentative Parcel Map 38164): Responses to Comments Submitted on February 15, 2022, by Shute Mihaly & Weinberger on Behalf of the Pass Area Action Group (Feb. 17, 2022) at 4.

SI !UTE M IH A LY
- \X,' E I N B I::: R G E R 1.1 P
813
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

Page 5 ends

with the General Plan's Noise Element and the City's noise ordinance that were included in the prior resolution.9
Both state law and the Municipal Code require that the City find the tentative map consistent with both the General Plan and the adopted specific plan. See Gov. Code §§ 65455, 66473 .5; Banning Mun. Code§ 17.96.070. The Municipal Code also requires that design review approval be supported by a determination "that the project adequately meets adopted City performance standards and design guidelines," as well as findings of consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance, and findings of compatibility with existing neighborhood uses and character. Banning Mun. Code§

17.56.050. Elimination of findings related to the Noise Element and noise ordinance deprive the draft resolution of the required support. 10 This omission cannot be remedied by merely adding back the findings deleted from the prior resolution. As discussed above, the City has never analyzed truck traffic noise on Sun Lakes Boulevard east of the Project, either from this Project alone or in combination with Sunset Crossroads. Absent such analysis, the City cannot support findings of consistency with the Noise Element and noise ordinance.

Finally, there is additional evidence before the City Council that this Project will not comply with local noise standards. The conclusion in the "Addendum/Consistency Checklist" that the Project's operational noise impacts will be less than significant explicitly depends on construction of a " 14-foot-high screen wall" on the south side of the proposed warehouse. Staff Report, Attachment 7 at 71-72. The design review plans for the Project attached to the staff report, however, depict this feature as an 8' wrought-iron fence , not a screen wall. Staff Report, Attachment 6 at 1 9 Accordingly, because the findings in Draft Resolution 2024-114 differ from the findings in Resolution 2022-14, the staff report's assertions that the tentative map and design review findings in Draft Resolution 2024-114 consist of the "findings that were upheld by the court" (Staff Report at 3, 4) are thus not entirely correct. 1° For example, Resolution 2022-14 found the tentative map approval consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan based on an assertion that "the applicant has been conditioned to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1" from the PEIR. Res. No. 2022-14 at 12-13. The proposed Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A to draft resolution 2024-114 do not contain any noise-related conditions. In addition, as discussed below, a general condition of approval requiring compliance with mitigation measures in the PEIR also has been deleted. Thus the mitigating condition on which the City based its finding of consistency with the Noise Element appears to have been eliminated as well.

SHUTE M IH A LY
\..., \'{/ I: I N B I: RC I:: R I.IP
814
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

Page 6 ends

(and Site Plan Keynote 6), 6, 7-8 (showing "screen wall" along the north side of the warehouse, adjacent to I-10 and the railroad tracks, but only a "fence" along the southern side of the warehouse facing Sun Lakes Boulevard and the Sun Lakes residential community). An 8' wrought-iron fence is obviously less effective at reducing noise than a 14' concrete screen wall. The conclusions regarding operational noise impacts in the Addendum/Consistency Checklist are thus based on inclusion of a "screen wall" along the southern side of the warehouse that is not included in the design review plans.11 Ill. Proposed conditions of approval eliminate the requirement that the applicant implement mitigation adopted in the PEIR.

Condition 2 of the conditions of approval adopted in 2022 required all activities undertaken in conjunction with the Project to comply with all mitigation measures in the PEIR and the accompanying mitigation monitoring and reporting plan ("MMRP"). Res. No. 2022-14, Ex. A at 1. The staff report asserts that these mitigation measures and the MMRP remain applicable to the Project. Staff Report at 5.

However, the proposed conditions of approval now before the Council omit Condition 2 as adopted in 2022. Accordingly, there is no condition of approval requiring compliance with the PEIR's mitigation measures or the MMRP.

The deletion of Condition 2 undermines the applicant's and the City's commitment to implementing the MMRP. To be clear, the mitigation measures in the MMRP do not go far enough to address the impacts of this Project; for example, they do not affirmatively require permanent noise barriers between the project and residences, use of electrical hookups for APUs and TRUs, or use of only electric on-site equipment (including yard hostlers and forklifts). But absent the commitment to the MMRP in Condition 2, the City cannot rely on the MMRP to support required findings under CEQA or other laws and ordinances.

Indeed, deletion of the condition specifically undermines other proposed findings. For example, Draft Resolution 2024-114, Section 2.F, states that the EIR's mitigation measures remain valid and applicable to the project. (Draft Resolution at 4.) Absent a condition requiring compliance with these mitigation measures, however, the Council's support for this finding is lacking.
11 We also note that none of the plans include additional sound barriers along the east side of the warehouse adjacent to The Lakes.

SII U TE llH A LY
\Vl:: I NBl:::RGER1.1"
815
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

Page 7 ends

Elimination of this condition also undermines compliance with CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(2) provides that mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments." Absent a permit condition requiring implementation of the MMRP, the mitigation measures in the PEIR do not squarely meet CEQA's enforceability requirements as applied to this Project.

Finally, given the possibility that the entitlements and/or the buildings themselves may be sold or leased to others by the developers, the conditions of approval should specify that all conditions are binding on the applicant's tenants, heirs, successors, and assigns.

IV. The "Public Comment Correspondence" Attached to the Staff Report Addresses Past Decisions, Not the Decisions Now Before the Council.

The staff report asserts that "[a]s of the date of this report, City staff had received several items of public communication for the public hearing to [be] held before the City Council on July 9, 2024, which have been provided to the City Council under separate cover, and are attached to this staff report." Staff Report at 10. However, the materials in Attachment 15 to the staff report (in a file called "Public Comment Correspondence") all appear to predate the Council's original February 2022 consideration and approval of the Project-approval the Council now must vacate and set aside in accordance with the Superior Court's judgment and writ of mandate. Nothing in Attachment 15 indicates that these materials constitute "public communication for the public hearing to [be] held" on July 9, as the staff report claims. To the contrary, the materials in Attachment 15 appear to be unrelated to the decisions and approvals currently before the Council.

V. Conclusion
The Banning Point Project as proposed is starkly incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will inflict severe impacts on nearby residents. The courtordered reconsideration of this Project gives the City Council and opportunity to rethink its past decisions in the context of a fair and impartial hearing. For the reasons stated herein, and in the appellant's presentations at the Council meeting, we urge the Council to grant Pass Action Group's appeal and deny approval of the design review, deny approval of the tentative map, and return this matter to planning staff and the Planning Commission for consideration of development alternatives that would bring the Banning community together rather than drive it apart.

SI I UT I~ M IH ALY
\Vl:: I NBl:RGE R1.1r
816
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

Page 8 ends

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin
~
P. Bundy
Cc: Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk (via e-mail) 179 1507.3

SHUTE MIHALY
'-- \X/1::: I NBl:::RGERuP
817
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

No on warehouse . Period .

Sent from my iPad
connie · .. •·::.:;----
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 4:36 PM
cityclerks
No on warehouse
1 Exhibit E
818
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Danni Otto<
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 4:21 PM
City Manager; cityclerks; Sheri Flynn; Rick Minjares; Colleen Wallace Banning Point
Please reconsider - DO NOT approve the warehouse proposed on Sun Lakes Blvd. This is a high risk area for residents with multiple medical issues. Having trucks running day and night is not only a health risk to this 'residential' area, but also a traffic nightmare.

A warehouse does not belong here, and the environmental study which was done during the Covid lockdown does not give a true environmental report of what really traffic looks like in this area.

Please, vote NO to this project.

Respectfully,
Danni Otto,
Resident of Banning
1 819
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To Whom It May Concern:

RECEIVED
JUL O 9 2024
City of Banning
emily mason < City Clerk's Office
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:53 PM
Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
Warehouse project in Banning
I am writing this email, not as a resident of Banning, but as a very concerned daughter of a Banning resident. My parents live in the Sun Lakes community. Sadly, my father has many respiratory and heart issues. I am so concerned about how this huge warehouse project will affect his, and many other residents', health. I'm sure you aware of the pollution this would cause.

Another major concern of mine is the traffic this will cause. What about the many ambulances constantly coming and going from both Sun Lakes and The Lakes? Almost every time I am visiting, there is an ambulance. The traffic in the Highland Springs area is already awful. My mom struggles to even get on the freeway so I fear for ALL of the elderly folks this traffic will affect.

Please take Sun Lakes, The Lakes, and all nearby Banning residents into consideration. Perhaps you can put yourself in the shoes of a concerned daughter?
Thank you for your time,
Emily Giordano
1 820
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Phil Jackson < . . >
Friday, July 5, 2024 10:56 AM

RECEIVED
JUL
City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
cityclerks; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace; Alberto Sanchez
_City Council
Objection to Banning Point Project
Objection to Banning Point Project.docx
Flag for follow up
Flagged
Subject: Objection to Banning Point Project
FOR THE BANNING CITY CLERK:

This is to register my objection to approval of the Banning Point Project, to include both the construction of the 619,959 square feet industrial building shell and the partitioning of the associated parcel.

Good governance would demand the completion of totally new mandated environmental studies and documentation before the Banning City Council further considers the development. To allow decisions based on a significantly outdated FEIR that does not reflect current traffic patterns and overburdened roads, surrounding retail development, new and planned residential growth, and contemporary air quality standards would be a breach of trust with Banning citizens and an abandonment of truly representative governance.

Should the project be allowed to go forward, the partitioning of the parcel must not be allowed. It seems to me that allowing the partitioning as proposed will make it simple for the developer to sell the portion that is slated for retail and restaurant development and, thus, avoid that part of the development. Any approval of the project should include, in writing, some sort of phased warehouse occupancy and retail/restaurant occupancy in the shielding portion of the parcel. Sun Lakes residents recall, and are reminded every day of, the promises broken by the city when it was promised that trees would be planted to shield it from view when the water tank on the hill just south of Sun Lakes was approved.

The Banning City Councilmembers are begged to put the health and happiness of the city's residents ahead of any developer's profits and increased revenue to the city's coffers. Especially when changes to existing City development plans are required in order to facilitate the latter.

The Banning Point Project proposal must be finally disapproved or at least sent back to step one of its preparation.

Sincerely,
Clifton P. Jackson
6238 Turn berry Drive
Banning, CA
821
Objection to Banning Point Project 5 July 2024
FOR THE BANNING CITY CLERK:

Should the project be allowed to go forward, the partitioning of the parcel must not be allowed. It seems to me that allowing the partitioning as proposed will make it simple for the developer to sell the portion that is slated for retail and restaurant development and, thus, avoid that part of the development. Any approval of the project should include, in writing, some sort of phased warehouse occupancy and retail/restaurant occupancy in the shielding portion ofthe parcel. Sun Lakes residents recall, and are reminded every day of, the promises broken by the city when it was promised that trees would be planted to shield it from view when the water tank on the hill just south of Sun Lakes was approved.

The Banning Point Project proposal must be finally disapproved or at least sent back to step one of its preparation.

Sincerely,
Clifton P. Jackson
6238 Turnberry Drive
Banning, CA
822
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

To all that this concerns:

Lee < >m >
Monday, July 8, 2024 10:59 AM
City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
Carol ine Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
Banning Point
Flag for follow up
Completed
As residents of Banning who just happen to reside in Sun Lakes, we ask you to please (re)consider the wisdom of building a warehouse within or adjacent to our communities.

We won't add the many reasons it's not an optimal location as we know you've heard them all. We just want to add our voices to that of our neighbors.

Thanks so much in advance for your thoughtful consideration! Lee & Michael Stone
823
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bobbie Davis < n >
Monday, July 8, 2024 12: 10 PM

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
Caroline Patton; Colleen Wallace; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn Banning Pointe
I am writing to express my disdain for the Banning Pointe project. I have noticed that even one semi on Highland Springs significantly slows down traffic let alone having semi trucks going in and out all day and evening!
We have significant pollution already with the freeway and train in our community. I hope you will not add more issues to the environment near a senior housing community! PLEASE VOTE NO ON BANNING POINTE! COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL YOU PUTTING THAT NEAR OUR SHOPPING ON AN ALREADY CONGESTION STREET MAKES NO SENSE! Barbara Davis
5700 W. Wilson St spc 66
Banning ca
1 824

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
City of Banning
anning city co 's Office
1624 Fairway Oaks
Banning,California
July 8,2024
Thank you for your service to Banning citizens. We know the decisions you make take ought and aren't always easy to make.

However, we are asking you to please do something to stop the planned warehouse Lakes and other residences for the elderly population.

We have lived in Sun Lakes over 20 years and enjoyed the location. However traffic ly increased on Highland Springs and we feel the extra warehouse traffic would make it very or us to drive in the area
As we drive around southern California we have seen MANY warehouses ( some be empty)that tells us we dp not need another warehouse,especially so close to elderly ,ers.

Thank you for listening to us.

Sincerely,
825
Submitted by
Ismael Morales,
1040 Riviera Ave.

Sun Lakes Country Club, Banning
951 255-4416
Good Evening Council Members,
!!i . ~
~ i
\.l'J " ~
co ~ ....I ~ .

RECEIV~
JUL U 8 202\
Ctty of Banning
C Clerk's Office
For 23 years I worked in retail sales, route sales and delivery, and insurance sales.

So I am very familiar with commutes and our Southern California roads. I then completed my degree and taught and coached on the high school level for 25 years. I retired from teaching and moved to Banning to enjoy a healthy and active retirement.

Enough with my background ...

Taxes .. .l know that a solid tax base is important to the healthy functioning of city government. Taxes, I know that in order to provide regular city services, taxes are key. Recreational and social services, thriving youth programs and senior citizen programs need the funding that comes from taxes.

Taxes are important. Heck, I go across the street from Sun Lakes and provide the city of Beaumont its taxes since we don't have that same easy retail access that Beaumont provides.

All of this said, the acquisition of a solid tax base should not be borne on the sacrifice of health and safety of its residents. I have already heard from previous meetings, the gist of which said, "yes, there will be adverse health effects if the Banning Point plan goes through, but state law allows us to disregard theses Environmental Impact Reports."
And I heard ... "While there may be increased traffic on Highland Springs, we don't think it will be as bad once we do some work on the streets." And it was said ... "We don't plan on allowing trucks to travel beyond the main entrance to Sun Lakes. "
And ... "The increase in pollutants will not be that bad." ... REALLY?
826
In recent weeks, on a variety of different days and hours, well after major "improvements" were completed on the Highland Springs off ramp, I have been in a back up of cars that stretches to the beginning of the off ramp and sometimes, even to the freeway, itself. If you add just two or three 18 wheelers to that line of cars, you will be contributing to an extremely dangerous situation on the 10 Freeway. Cars will be stopped on the freeway, almost to Pennsylvania.

Even if the long range projected carpool lane is added, that won't do anything to the number of vehicles that still need to exit the freeway at that point.

Once the vehicles have negotiated that turn Southbound onto Highland Springs, people returning home, people going to our local shopping centers, people turning feft from Ramsey to Highland Springs wiff alt be faced with an additional backup even greater than what it already is.

If you recall, my initial statement included my desire for a healthy and active retirement. How healthy will it be if you add these additional vehicles and the pollution that they wm add? How heafthy wiH it be for myseff and others as we return home on the 10 Fwy and are rear ended? How healthy will it be when the natural response that some people have to enter an intersection when it is already crowded is added to what is already a difficult emergency service response time? How healthy wm it be as we wait behind a diese) truck and it spews it exhaust on all of us?
Oh, but they will add to our tax base.

As I said earlier ... REALLY?
Please get your heads out of your ... well, you know and get them out of your wallets and into more constructive planning that will benefit our entire, great, little city.
827

RECEIVED
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sincerely,
Laurie Sampson
Assistant City Manager
City of Banning
Direct Line: 951-922-4860
[email protected]
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
www.banningca.gov
City Manager
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 9:19 AM
Caroline Patton
FW: NO on warehouse
- -, - --· "''::I
City Clerk's Office
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, if you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you.

My working hours are Monday to Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM . I will respond to your email as soon as possible. -----Original Message-----
From: Gail Wright< n>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 4:47 PM
To: Doug Schulze <[email protected]>; City Manager <[email protected]> Subject: NO on warehouse
Please put the welfare of all the people in Sun Lakes and The Lakes as top priority and vote AGAINST the warehouse project proposed!
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Gail Wright
Sent from my iPhone
828
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

K Whempner <
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 9:19 AM
cityclerks
Fw: Common Sense for Banning
--- ·--...

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
t,;ity of Banning
Citv Clerk's Office
Please include the email below with those against the Banning Point Project.

Thank you,
Karen Whempner
----- Forwarded Message-----
From: K Whempner < >
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday , July 9, 2024, 09:16:10 AM PDT
Subject: Common Sense for Banning
I am asking you to consider Common Sense and Kindness for Banning and Beaumont.

Common Sense shows that placing a warehouse off Highland Springs and Sun Lakes Blvd. would cause an abundance of traffic problems. We often have major traffic jams on Highland Springs at the freeway , 1st Street and 2nd Street, especially 2nd Street. We see what happens when accidents occurs at these areas. Adding large trucks in the mix of this traffic WILL cause these kind of major traffic jams to occur on a weekly basis, slowing down business activity and increasing the chances of accidents, and causing more traffic jams. With the regular occurrence of traffic jams, it's common sense that these traffic jams and accidents will increase when large trucks are placed in the middle of heavy traffic hours. Please consider this when voting of the Banning Point Project.

Noise and smell travels within the Banning area. Common Sense says that this noise will increase if the Banning Point Project is passed. Yes, I live in Sun Lakes. Yes, I hear traffic from the freeway very loudly, even when all my windows are closed. Sometimes that traffic sounds like it's coming down Sun Lakes Blvd. instead of it being on the freeway. Did you know that when road construction was happening on the freeway, we could hear the beeping from trucks backing up? That's how much sound travels! Now consider that roaring of trucks in a residential area, trucks and forklifts constantly backing up and pulling out, diesel gas odors, squeaky brakes, rumbling and roaring down the streets. SOUND AND ODORS TRAVELS!! This will be difficult for all residents in The Lakes, Sun Lakes, Four Seasons and the surrounding homes. Do you really expect us to lock ourselves in our homes, close our windows and live a happy, quiet life? Common Sense shows that this warehouse will effect this entire community in a big way.

The other effects you have heard, you know, you must consider. Warehouses belong on the outskirts of town. That's Common Sense and it's also considering what is best for our city and surrounding communities.

Please be Kind and use Common Sense. Vote NO on the Banning Point Project and any warehouse project that is next to a housing community. You can do better for Banning. Please start with NO on warehouses.
829
Sincerely,
Karen Whempner
578 Northwood Avenue
Banning , CA 922220
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
2 830
- . - - ----,

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
Citv of 8annina
City Clerk's Office
From: Kim Jensen <
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 7:47 AM
To: Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
Subject: Banning Warehouse(s)
Dear Banning City Council Members:

I am writing this plea as a seven year resident of Banning and Sun Lakes in the hope that you will consider voting against putting a warehouse right next to the Sun Lakes community and The Lakes assisted living facility.

The reasons I am against it are many, and I'm sure you have been made well aware of them: traffic, pollution, noise, and odors come immediately to mind. It would be a nightmare for us Sun Lakes residents and the elderly people who are living their last days at The Lakes assisted living facility.

Most of those of us who live here came to Banning to enjoy our golden years in peace. This would seriously disrupt our lives, and many of us are not in the financial nor physical shape to just pull up tent stakes and move elsewhere.

Please, please do not let this happen to us.

Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for serving our community, and thank you for taking the time to read this. Please vote with your heart.

Sincerely,
Kim Jensen
Sun Lakes Resident
1 831
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:
,- . --·.

RECEIVED
Kathleen Dale ·
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 8:48 AM
JUL O 8 2024
City of Banning
Citv Clerk's Office
cityclerks; Caroline Patton; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
July 9, 2024 City Council Public Hearing - Banning Point 070924CCHearing_Consistency.pdf
City Council members - please consider the following in your deliberations on this matter.

City Clerk - please ensure that a copy of this e-mail and attachment are included in the project record.

Respectfully and Hopefully,
Kathleen Dale
It is easy to get lost in the weeds with this project and the voluminous project record . However, if you take a deep cleansing breath, take a baby step back, and focus in on just a few key facts, the picture is crystal clear and your decision is simple.

The attached document includes an aerial photograph overlain with the site plan and truck paths of travel (as presented in the health risk assessment) and a summary of four fundamental General Plan and Specific Plan provisions that the project clearly does not comply with.

Approval actions on the parcel map and the design review require that you make numerous affirmative findings, including that the proposals are consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan. As the project violates fundamental provisions of both the General Plan and the Specific Plan, YOU MAY NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED. FURTHER, AS YOU MAY

NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT, CEQA DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE IS NO NEED TO WADE INTO THAT SWAMP.

I trust a majority of the Council will come around as you finally did with the Charles Street project to understand that this project is an affront to the City's planning framework and substantially disrespects the established neighborhood. I ask that you take the responsible action of soundly denying the parcel map and design review applications before you . 832

BANNING POINT - FUNDAMENTAL GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN MISSES (submitted by Kathleen Dale for City Council Public Hearing 7/9/24) General Plan Says: Banning Point Project: Consistent?
The General Plan Vision Statement is Places a single, massive warehouse characterized as the driving force up to 14 feet above adjacent homes NO behind land use decisions. The vision and roads and places a driveway to statement commits to respecting and be used for primary truck access at enhancing the character of existing the common property line with an neighborhoods (General Plan Page 1-1 ) established assisted living facility.

Specific Plan Says: Banning Point Project:

The Office & Professional District The parcel map and site plan include NO panhandle extending to Sun Lakes the Office and Professional District Boulevard is for passenger vehicle only access panhandle in the warehouse access to that district(SP Figures 4 and parcel and use this drive for truck 5, SP Section 2.2.2) access.

Specific Plan Says: Banning Point Project:

Truck traffic is to be restricted to the The Office and Professional District NO Business and Warehouse District (SP access drive has been taken over for Figures 4 and 5, SP Sections 2.2.1) truck traffic.

Specific Plan Says: Banning Point Project:

The three land use districts are to be The warehouse creates 30-acres of NO interconnected with pedestrian links concrete surface with underground integrated with landscaped stormwater stormwater management features. management features (Specific Plan Pedestrian connectivity is precluded Sections 2.2.5 and 3.2.1). due to building coverage, grade differentials and truck traffic.

SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN (Specific Plan Figure 5) Business & Warehouse
District
110.22 .,,.,,
Retail & Service District
Office &
Professional
District
(10.06 ocres)

Page 1 of 2 ends

833

BANNING POINT VICINITY AERIAL WITH PROJECT OVERLAY

Page 2 of 2 ends

834
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

To all that this concerns,

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
Hebe Tabachnik <
City -Clerk's Offi~e
Monday, July 8, 2024 4:09 PM
Caroline Patton
Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace; Doug Schulze; [email protected]
Against the Banning Point Project
We have been living in Sun Lakes Country Club for the past four years. We love living in Banning because it is a safe and healthy community.

We ask you to please (re)consider the wisdom of building the Banning Point project. This project will have irriversable effects on every aspect of living in the area, from horrific traffic jams, to unhealthy air and sound pollution, to endangering the people of the whole area when emergency vehicles will need to reach people in need.

There are many more reasons it's not a reasonable location for the project but we believe you have heard or read about them all. We just want to add our voices of opposition and serious concern to that of our neighbors.

Thank you in advance for your time and thoughtful consideration! Best,

HEBE & JUAN TALLO
835
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
. . -

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
Cindy Medley <
Monday, July 8, 2024 1 :51 PM
Sandra Calderon; cityclerks; Caroline Patton; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Colleen Wallace; David Happe; Sheri Flynn; Doug Schulze; _City Council Reconsider Banning Point
Hello City Clerk, and City Council Members,
Please vote No to continue with the Banning Point Development. This project will not add any value to Banning. Look at all the vacant warehouses in San Bernardino County, they get built and then sit empty.

New warehouses are also being built in Calimesa, Yucaipa and Beaumont that may never be occupied. If they are occupied think what a mess the air quality will be, think about the people with breathing problems such as COPD and asthma, this could be your Grandparents, Parents, Kids or even yourself.

Another concern is for all the additional traffic, just what we need more congestion on all our surrounding surface streets. Accidents waiting to happen.

All these warehouses are not going to get the people to spend money in our community if they need to travel to other Cities to find the places they want to shop at, eat at or to receive medical services. People want to purchase homes in a community where they can do these things.

Please reconsider and vote NO on the Banning Point Development. Maybe this would be a good site for Medical offices, Banning has a horrible shortage of Medical Professionals. Something to consider!! Please make this email part of the public record.

Thank You,
Cindy Medley
Sent from my iPhone
836
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

To all that this concerns:

Gary and Olga Marquette <
Monday, July 8, 2024 3:27 PM
Colleen Wallace; Caroline Patton
Banning Point
Flag for follow up
Flagged
REC .. EIVED
JUL O 8 2024
As residents of Banning who reside in Sun Lakes, we ask you to please reconsider the wisdom of building a warehouse within or adjacent to our senior communities.

We won't add the many reasons it's not an optimal location, as you know and have heard them all. We just want to add our voices to that of our neighbors.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration.

Gary and Olga Marquette
837
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
Anita Lawrence < ,>
Monday, July 8, 2024 2:53 PM
Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
Banning Poi nt
To: Banning City Council Members & City Staff Members:

As a 25 year resident of Banning and Sun Lakes, we are asking you to please reconsider the wisdom of building a warehouse within a residential community.

As has been stated many times before, building a warehouse in a residential area is not an optimal location and will impact many lives within the Banning community.

We are hopeful that you will reconsider your position on building this warehouse and thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
William & Anita Lawrence
838
From: Doug Schulze
Sent:

To:

Monday, July 8, 2024 4:42 PM
Caroline Patton
Subject:

Doug Schulze, ICMA-CM
City Manager
City Manager's Office
City of Banning
Direct Line: 951-922-3104
dschulze@ba nningca.gov
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
www.bannir1gca.gov
From: Marie Johnson<
FW: Banning Point
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 4:19 PM
To: Doug Schulze <dschulze@banningca .gov>
Subject: Banning Point
m>

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
'-''IY or Manning
City Clerk's Office
Dear Mr.Schulz, My husband and I are residents of Banning and we are asking that you will reconsider this Banning Point Warehouse. We believe it will be more of a headache to the city of Banning than a positive impact. Thank you , Mr.& Mrs. Johnson
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPbooe
839
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To Banning city officials

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024

JOHN HENEISE
Monday, July 8, 2024 2:56 PM
Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
Banning Point
My wife and I moved to Banning as our final retirement home 8 years ago. The thought of warehouses being built across from our community never entered our minds as there are thousands of senior homes in our community and thousands more in Beaumont just across the street from us. Who would ever imagine that city officials would think that it was a good idea to build warehouses among a very vulnerable population.

Please reconsider your past decisions and take this opportunity to make choices that will make Banning and Beaumont both places that will continue to attract new residents and be considered desirable locations to live in. Please put resident needs above developer needs.

Thank you for your consideration and service.

John and Donna Heneise
Sent from my iPhone
909-720-803 7
840
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Hello,

DONNA FERREIRA,
Monday, July 8, 2024 1 :11 PM
cityclerks; Caroline Patton
ferreira0101
Banning Point Project
My name is Donna Ferreira and I reside at 1539 Fairway Oaks Ave, Banning CA 92220.

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
/
City of Banning
I will be unavailable to attend the Council Meeting regarding the Banning Point Project on July 9, 2024. I would like to express my opposition of the approval for the proposed warehouse to located next to a senior citizen care facility and in the heart of a Senior Citizen Community, I respectfully request that the city council vote AGAINST this project and go back to the drawing board to address a better use for this property that would better serve the community as a whole and that would cause less of an impact to the health and wellbeing of the already established community, many of whom do not have the ways and means to relocate if the warehouse does come into the proposed location causing an immediate impact on the health and wellbeing.

Granted, warehouses have a place and a purpose, this location is just the wrong place.

To recap, I would like it to be entered into the meeting notes that I am opposed to the approval of the warehouse to be located near the Lakes on Sun Lakes Blvd. I am opposed to the Banning Point Project.

Thank You ,
Donna Ferreira
951-741-2377
841
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To all that this may concern:
-RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
Barbara Elness <.

Monday, July 8, 2024 2:36 PM
Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
Banning Point
As a resident of Banning, who lives in Sun Lakes, I ask you to please consider the wisdom of building a warehouse adjacent to my community. Although there are many reasons that this is not an optimal location for such a project, I will not list them all here, since I know you've heard them all.

Please consider all residents in this decision, especially those that will be most affected by this, the senior and most vulnerable population at the Lakes and Sun Lakes CC that are nearest to this project.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Barbara Elness
6187 Inverness Drive
Banning, CA 92220
842
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

KATHLEEN DALE • l >
Monday, July 8, 2024 1 :43 PM

RECEIVED
City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
Caroline Patton; cityclerks; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; Colleen Wallace; David Happe
July 9, 2024 - Public Hearing for Banning Point
021722_CComments.pdf
Attached are my prior comments of February 17, 2022, which remain relevant (although references to content within the staff report may be off).

I did not find this document in my review of the agenda packet, but am told it it there, only missing a couple of pages.

Please ensure that this resubmitted copy is included in the project record.

Thank you,
Kathleen Dale
843
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. 844
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 Al.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?
845
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 NOl-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?
846
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. 847
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. 848
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

Resoa.rtk:ln No 2005-91 Com~re1..1t Vehic:le- Routes
849
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

RECEIVED\
JUL O 8 2024
Beth Carlin < im >
Monday, July 8, 2024 2:04 PM
Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; David Happe; Rick Minjares; Colleen Wallace; Sheri Flynn
Banning Point
We have lived now in Sun Lakes for eight years and love our community and surrounding areas. We are very concerned about the plans to build warehouses so very close to our neighborhoods which will negatively impact these communities and adjacent areas.

Please consider your future decisions to build these warehouses so close to our communities that will impact our health, traffic congestion and property values.

We thank you for your time and consideration in planning this development.

Robert and Beth Carlin
Sent from my iPhone
850
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

GARY BEESON <
Monday, July 8, 2024 2:19 PM
Caroline Patton
Warehouse
- . ... ·--·-- - -- ·-·

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
As a long time (53 yrs) resident of Cherry Valley. I hope you will stop the warehouse behind Albertsons from being built.

We don't need any added truck traffic in that area.
851
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To the city council
RECEIVED·
JUL O 8 2024
Duane barringer < C
Monday, July 8, 2024 5:17 PM
Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze; Alberto Sanchez; David Happe; Rick Minjares; Colleen Wallace; Sheri Flynn
Banning Point
As a resident of this city, I ask you to please reconsider the wisdom of building a warehouse adjacent to our Sun lakes communities.We know you've heard all the reasons why it's not a good location for a warehouse.

Thank you all in advance for your thoughtful consideration Duane Barringer
760-808-2591
Sent from my ipad
852

RECEIVED
JUL O 6 2024
City Clerk's Office
From: Susan Walsh < 1>
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 12:33 PM
To: Caroline Patton
Cc: City Manager; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn; David Happe; Colleen Wallace
Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Urge NO vote on Banning Pointe Project
Flag for follow up
Flagged
Dear Administrative City Clerk Patton,
I'm requesting that my letter to the City Manager and all City Council Representatives {copy below) be included as part of the official record of the Banning City Council Meeting July 9, 2024.

Thank you.

Dear City Manager Schulze,
Mayor Sanchez,
Mayor Pro Tern Minjares,
Council Member Flynn,
Council member Happe,
Council Member Wallace
I'm writing to urge a no vote on the development of the Banning Pointe warehouse on Sun Lakes Blvd in Banning, Calif.

I understand the need for warehouses in this economy but this is not the appropriate location in Banning. o On the east side there's a facility for Alzheimer's patients {The Lakes); o On the south side a senior community of thousands of residents (Sun Lakes Country Club); o On the west side a small but vibrant shopping center (Albertson's Shopping Center/Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center).

This is a residential community with already horrendous and dangerous traffic issues. Semis coming and going 24 hours a day will only make it many times worse.

Over the past 22 years, state and federal air quality regulations have progressed with reducing large particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. However, with the recent exponential increase in warehouses in the Inland Empire, decades of effort are becoming undermined as greenhouse gases (GHG) climb, and NOx, particulate matter (PM), and ozone continue to disproportionately impact certain communities. I submit to you, that a large segment of Banning's senior community is one of the areas that would be disproportionately affected, almost 20% of Banning's population. 853
o Decision makers in Banning have not taken into consideration the long-lasting effects this project will have on the health of community residents they serve o Traffic congestion and bottle necks are another big concern. They already occur on Highland Springs from the freeway to Sun Lakes Blvd. How much worse will it be with a steady stream of semis 24 hours a day.
o Sun Lakes Blvd was not designed and created with the ability to handle constant semi traffic at all hours of the day and night.

My husband and I have been residents here in Banning for almost 5 years. We love it here. Banning has so much potential. Please don't ruin it with warehouses in inappropriate areas. There are appropriate locations for such warehouses away from residential areas, away from schools, shopping centers ...

Build them there.

Thank you.

Dennis and Susan Walsh
Banning, California
Sent from my iPhone
2 854
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Dear City Council,
Harriet Snyder <
Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:06 PM
cityclerks

RECEIVED
JUL O 2 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
RE: Proposed Warehouse project opposite Gate 1 at Sun Lakes Country Club Community
Follow up
Flagged
My name is Harriet Snyder and I am a resident of Sun Lakes Country Club. My home is close to the main gate 1 and I use it several times a day.

I have been very concerned about the proposed large warehouse project proposed to be directly opposite our gate lmain entrance. However, my concern turned to terror last week when I exited left through gate 1, turned right on Highland Springs, and then got into the left lane to get on the 10 freeway going west.

After passing through the light on 2nd street, I was almost to the next light when I noticed a big rig slightly behind me on my right, with his left turn blinker on. Apparently he was new to the area and/or not paying attention as he did not know that you need to get in the left turn lane way back before the 2nd street light to be able to turn left onto the freeway, with all the traffic and congestion at these intersections.

There wa · · lly no way for me to allow him in as he was behind me. However, when the light turned green and no other cars let him in, he moved forward and started forcing his way into my lane. I had nowhere to go.

Beeping rrw•f<orn didn't help. Fortunately I was able to move forward and out of his way before he smashed .. into me or I smashed into someone else. I was terrified, and additionally had my 3 year old granddaughter in the back seat. It would have been two of us injured or killed. This was at 9:50 a.m.

Highland Springs Ave is a very congested area WITHOUT dozens of big rigs moving in and out of it's lanes. The 3500+ population of Sun Lakes is elderly - who knows how many accidents, injuries and deaths will occur with big rigs competing with elderly drivers with decreased reflex skills as they maneuver their way down or up Highland Springs Ave? Not to mention the residents of Four Seasons, and the multiple residents of non-senior homes south of First Ave.

It currently takes me 10-15 minutes to get from Gate 1 to the left turn lane that goes on the freeway going west if there is ONE big rig in the lane in front of me. This is waiting through 3 - 5 lights. How long will it take me with two big rigs? Three big rigs? And yes, I am aware that I could take 1st Ave to Beaumont Ave to get on the freeway there, but then you have the massive traffic back up that is always on Beaumont Ave. And why should I, or any of us, have to drive 2+ miles out of our way when the freeway entrance we need is just down the street?
Please consider the safety issues that will develop if this warehouse project goes through. Please consider the traffic jam issues that will be SO times worse if this warehouse project goes through. Please consider the multiple negative impacts on all the residents that live in this area.

Highland Springs Ave was not built to support multiple big rig traffic. It is beyond congested enough with just regular cars. Go drive over there yourselves and see how it is most of every day. 855
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,
Harriet Snyder
5955 Warwick Hills Way, Banning CA 922
2 856
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Mahm <
Friday, June 28, 2024 4:3 1 PM
citycl erks

RECEIVED
City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
Re: Submitting Comments in Opposition to Banning Pointe Project for Pu blic Hearing on June 11
Follow up
Flagged
I am resubmitting this communication to be included in the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, July 9th regarding the Banning Point Project.

Mary Ann Melleby
Sent from AOL on Android
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:1 O PM, Mahm
< > wrote:

This written communication is being submitted to be included in the public hearing process scheduled for Tuesday, June 11 , 2024, regarding the Banning Pointe Project.

We are adamantly opposed to this project because of the following reasons: traffic issues, and air and noise pollution and inappropriate location for warehouse operations.

Traffic Issues:

Adding additional trucks to our already congested traffic area on Highland Springs will increase traffic to unacceptable levels. With over 80 percent of the residents living near the project being over 55 years in age, there is almost a daily need for emergency services, in particular, paramedics and ambulance service. With increased traffic congestion, these emergency services will be greatly impeded to those residents in critical need at The Lakes, Sun Lakes Country Club and Four Seasons. Every second counts in a medical emergency. No amount of traffic light management or roadway improvements will be effective.

Air and Noise Pollution
Increased presence of trucks in the area will certainly have a negative effect on air and noise pollution, due to the daily presence of noisy trucks, spewing diesel gasoline fumes. ·
857
Here again, with over 80 percent of the residents living near the project being over 55 years of age, many with compromised health conditions, it is unacceptable for any warehouse to be in an area adjacent to an assisted living facility and across the street from a large retirement community.

Inappropriate Location:

One only has to drive the 60 freeway through the Moreno Valley region to see that the warehouses are not located adjacent to residential areas. For the most part, this is also true in the Ontario area. The Amazon facility in Beaumont and the new (and seemingly vacant) warehouses off Cherry Valley Avenue are located away from residential areas. There is another warehouse located in the eastern part of Banning that has recently become vacant. It is appropriately placed.

Warehouses are an important element of goods movement in today's economy, but location, besides the availability of raw land, is an important consideration. The Banning Pointe Project is grossly inappropriately placed and should not be approved for the proposed location.

We are vehemently opposed to the project, especially the warehouse component.

Sincerely,
Mary Ann Harvey-Melleby
Richard Collier
Sun Lakes Country Club Residents
6308 Ponte Verde Circle
Banning, CA 92220
(909) 974-8008
2 858
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Patricia Norcutt
Friday, June 7, 2024 4:49 PM
Caroline Patton
Banning Point Project
JUN Ii 7 2024
City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
My parents were residents of Sun Lakes for 30 years until their deaths. They absolutely loved Banning! I am a 16 year resident of Four Seasons in Beaumont. This project affects not only Banning residents but also Beaumont residents along with anyone who frequents Highland Springs. The infrastructure can barely support the traffic now. Adding additional trucks would be a horrendous and disastrous decision. Please vote NO. No warehouses near Albertsons.

Patricia Norcutt
859
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Cindy Medley < >
Monday, June 10, 2024 6:47 PM

RECEIVED
JUN 1 0 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
Sandra Calderon; cityclerks; Caroline Patton; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Colleen Wallace; David Happe; Sheri Flynn; Doug Schulze; _City Council Reconsider Banning Point
Hello City Clerk, and City Council Members,
Please vote No to continue with the Banning Point Development. This project will not add any value to Banning. Look at all the vacant warehouses in San Bernardino County, they get built and then sit empty.

New warehouses are also being built in Calimesa, Yucaipa and Beaumont that may never be occupied. If they are occupied think what a mess the air quality will be, think about the people with breathing problems such.as COPD and asthma, this could be your Grandparents, Parents, Kids or even yourself.

Another concern is for all the additional traffic, just what we need more congestion on all our surrounding surface streets. Accidents waiting to happen.

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To Whom It May Concern,
Anita Chatigny <
Monday, June 10, 2024 1:14 PM
cityclerks
Letter

RECEIVED
JUN 1 0 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
I am writing as a concerned citizen of Banning. I am a working professional who moved to Banning approximately 5 years ago. I moved with the promise of spending my retirement in a community built upon City leadership that would support my health and well-being.

I have watched with dread as the City has taken a blind eye to responsible city planning. Even with legal issues that bring the council to revisit the Banning Pointe project, I am still not convinced that Banning City Council will act in its citizens' best interests.

The question before you is simple: How many lives is the City of Banning willing to sacrifice for the promise of money?
I want to believe in this City Council and its ability to revisit the Banning Pointe initiative with a fresh viewpoint. As much as I hate to consider this, I am prepared to move from this community if the actions of the council do not demonstrate the care/concern for its senior citizens as I once envisioned. I wonder how many others there are that feel the same.

I want to keep my tax dollars here and to work in partnership with the City Council. Please demonstrate by your vote your commitment to partner with me.

Sincerely yours,
(Electronically signed)
Anita Lara Chatigny, Ph.D.

Sent from my iPad
861

RECEIVED
From:

Sent:

To:

Kathleen Dale < >
Monday, June 10, 2024 2:24 PM
cityclerks; Caroline Patton; Doug Schulze
JUN 1 0 2024
vlty or Banning
City Clerk's Office
Cc: Sheri Flynn; Rick Minjares; Colleen Wallace; Alberto Sanchez; David Happe Subject: Re: 6/11/24 City Council Meeting - Agenda Items 6.10 and 7.1 (Substantive Content Missing)
Just in case - correcting my time warp reference in the original subject line.

Kathy
On Monday, June 10, 2024 at 02:20:17 PM PDT, Kathleen Dale <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon - in reviewing the posted agenda packet yesterday , serious omissions in the back-up material became evident.

1. Neither report includes a location exhibit or any exhibits identifying the proposed project.

2. The only attachment to the report for Item 6.10 is the proposed three-page resolution to rescind the prior approval. The body of the report does not refer to inclusion of a copy of the resolution being rescinded, the resolution to be rescinded is not listed as an attachment, and the resolution to be rescinded is not otherwise present or linked.

3. The report for item 7.1 includes two attachments, the proposed approval resolution and Exhibit A to that resolution (the conditions of approval). The body of the report refers to additional attachments that are not listed at the end of the report, and that are not otherwise present or linked (project exhibits noted at the end of the APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND HEARING DATES section, public comments noted in the ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS section, the December 1, 2021 Planning Commission packet noted in the JUSTIFICATION section , and the Planning Commission approval resolution noted in the PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION section).

4. There is no supporting content for Item 7.1 related to the proposed CEQA action (e.g., the Addendum, supporting technical reports , or mitigation monitoring program).

These are serious omissions of substantive content necessary for the public to provide informed comment and for the decision-makers to make an informed decision.

I trust that these items will be pulled from the agenda for Tuesday's meeting.

Respectfully,
Kathleen Dale
862
R1:·c-EIVED
JUN 1 0 2024
From: Stuart <
Sent: Monday, June 10, 20241:04 PM
To:

Cc:

Alberto Sanchez; [email protected]; Sheri Flynn; Colleen Wallace City Manager; Laurie Sampson
Subject: Transit and Business Center of the Pa ss
Attachments: Transit and Business Center of the Pass copy.pages 1 . Alberto Sanchez , Mayor ,
2 . Rick Minhares , Mayor Pro Tern ,
3 . Sheri Flynn , Council Member ,

4. David Happe , Council Member ,
5 . Col l een Wallace , Council Member .

Cc : Doug Schulze , City Manager ,
Cc : Laurie Sampson , Assistant City Manager.

Enclosure : Letter to Banning Planning Commission , 2024 - 06- 05 This is a proposal asking you to consider better use of the so- called Banning Point area in west Banning . Establish a Transit Center to serve as a station for the Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor service , better known as Coachella Valley Rail , with passenger service between Los Angeles and Indio .

The current proposal for a warehouse and the accompanying big truck traffic and diesel fumes and particles do not belong in a residential zone . It conflicts with Banning ' s stated desire to adopt a "Blue Zone " status for the health and welfare of all residents .

This land is an opportunity for Banning to plan for the positive and healthful future of the Peop le of Banning and the Pass Area .

This proposal is a challenge to the developer of the proposed warehouse to build something beneficial to the People of the Pass . If the developer cannot do this, the developer does not belong in California .

Assistant City Manager : Please pass this on to Council Member Happe who did not list an email in his City Bio .

Thank you ,
Stuart MacKenzie
Banning , California 92220
863
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Council Members,
bruano <
Monday, June 10, 2024 1:17 PM

RECEIVED
JUN t O 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
Laurie Sampson; Alberto Sanchez; [email protected]; Colleen Wallace; David Happe; Sheri Flynn
[email protected]
Banning Point Warehouse Project
Please vote no against the Banning Point Warehouse project. I have been a Sun Lakes resident for 6 years. I am involved in the Banning community, not only in Sun Lakes. My career took me to many cities/states over the years but Banning is the place I want to spend my senior years. The warehouse would severly dampen the joy of living here. The truck traffic, more traffic jams, dirty air are all hazardous for all residence of Banning but even more for the elderly. Again, please vote NO to warehouses next to the residential areas.

Respectfully,
Bess Ruano
Banning Resident
1539 Faireway Oaks Ave.

Banning CA
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
864
865
,- Patricia Syre
1212 Laguna Seca Ct
Banning CA 92220-5419

RECEIVED
JUN C 6 202~
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
, OIi
~
o/) ~f
19\JE, flft~l
f3~ &) f;J,k)fj
'\Y
'24JUN 6 9=0~HH
866
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sheets Family <
Wednesday, June 5, 2024 2:46 PM
cityclerks
No Warehouse
> RECEIVED
JUN O 5 2024
City of Banning
Citv Clerk's Office
Please reconsider approving the warehouse on Sun Lakes Blvd. Having trucks running day & night is not only a health risk to seniors in Sun Lakes & The Lakes but also a traffic nightmare. A warehouse does not belong in a quiet residential area.

Please note the error of the environment study which was done during the Covid lockdown when traffic wasn't an issue.

It makes more sense to put in a warehouse in downtown Banning where there are no homes.

Concerned senior residents,
Bob & Nancy Sheets
1 867
~0\0 \\-+~
RiS1- \JEN\~
, JUN O 5 2024
City of Banning
Cl Clerk', Office
On " June 5 2024 M . . ' ' s. Gartzke submitted . pet1t1on" h signed s eets to the City Clerk's Off ice. 1,007 sheets of the attached
notice were received.
868
To: The Banning City Cowicil
The residents of Sun Lakes Country Club chose to move into the community because it met the needs of these residents who were entering the latter stages of their life. The surrounding community offered a slower pace of life with adequate resources for their everyday needs. The air quality was good. The traffic was moderate. The neighbors were nice. The city was looking after the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and the community.

This approach to choosing where you live is likely not so different from how some members of the City Council choose the homes they live in. _They want a safe, clean neighborhood with a quality school close to home for their children and not too far from work. We ask the Council:

If your children's school is shut down or there was a factory constructed across the street from the school that produced constant fumes and noise surrounding the playground, would you consider re-locating to another neighborhood? As a person who is 30 to 50 years younger than most Sun Lakes residents, you have the option to re-locate.

We, in Sun Lakes, are not in our prime earning years and our options are limited due to health issues and reduced income. We ask the City Council to delay any vote on the Banning Point Project until after they take into consideration that Sun Lakes Country Club alone represents nearly 20 percent ofBanning's total residential population, and this population is going to be negatively affected by the development of the Banning Point Project for the rest of their natural lives.

We ask the Banning City Council to also take into consideration that the City is still looking for land to develop low density and/or medium density housing. A small apartment complex built to house our own Banning seniors whose income would not allow them to purchase or rent homes in Sun Lakes would be a godsend to many. The City is also trying to encourage the reopening of a new Department of Motor Vehicles building. With so many seniors within a twoor three-mile radius of this property, a medical facility providing medical specialists would be well supported. A facility like this would bring residents from many of the surrounding cities to take advantage ofBanning's Specialist facility. Any of these options could be developed on the Banning Point 4 7 acres. Consider promoting and soliciting developers for these types of projects. Allow the current developer to re-locate to an area farther away from existing, mature . developments designed to house seniors, and allow the current developer to negotiate with the owners of one of the many empty warehouses already collecting dust. smeer A.Oo.eess OAr.d
869

THE BANNING POINT WAREHOUSE FIGHT CONTINUES
The Judge ruled that the current Banning City Council must reconsider the Banning Point Project. That means that any individual concerned that construction of a 620,000 square foot warehouse with its associated traffic and pollution would be detrimental to the surrounding community still has an opportunity to let their voice be heard before the Coun~il condU:cts another vote on the project.

The attached document has been created to infonn the City Council of the residents' concerns and to request that the Council delay any vote on the Banning Point Project until after taking into consideration that Sun Lakes Country Club alone represents nearly 20 percent of Banning's total residential population, and this population is going to be negatively affected by the development of the project for the rest of their natural lives.

If you would like to add your name to the list of Sun Lakes residents who want to be heard before it is too late, please print your name, sign your name, provide your street address, and give the date you signed the document. Return the signed document to your District Delegate as soon as possible (3 to 5 days). We want to let the City Council members understand that we are still opposed to this warehouse project, but we must speak up BEFORE they take another vote.

Thank you,
Dorrie Gartzke, SLCC Recycle Project
870
From: Fran Matzen< >
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 6:22 AM
To: Sandra Calderon <[email protected]>
Subject: Banning Point
Dear Banning city officials,

RECEIVED
JUN O 5 2024
City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
Thank you for listening to your constituents. Please DO NOT APPROVE the Banning Point warehouse project.

As I am sure you are aware, there are over 3,000 residents living in close proximity to the proposed project. Studies have shown the ill effects warehouse projects can have on the health of those living nearby.

Also, traffic in the general area is already bad. We don't need truck traffic added to the mix. Have you ever tried exiting the eastbound 110 in the late afternoon? We often are on the shoulder well west of the exit, sometimes just barely able to get in the line that is backed up almost to the Pennsylvania Avenue on-ramp. Please don't add truck traffic to this. In addition,the street traffic on Highland Springs south of the freeway to Sun Lakes Boulevard is already quite congested.

Please consider those who elected you when you vote.

Thank you,
Frances Matzen
5652 Lopez Way
Banning, CA 92220
871
From: Shirley Dills<
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 8:55 AM
To: Sandra Calderon <[email protected]>
Subject: Banning Point

RECEIVED
JUN O 5 2024
City of Banning
I am writing to you to reconsider your approval of the Banning Point. City Clerk's Office I have lived here in Sun Lakes for 20 years and considered this my last home here in Banning.

I have a great life here in Banning, but that is threatened now due to Traffic from big rigs blocking streets that we must use. Sun Lakes through the Mello Roos paid out of our pocket for the Highland Springs underpass so we could have fast access to San Gorgonio Hospital.

This is now, due to the approval of Banning Point being approved, a real life threat to many here in Sun Lakes.

We have paid our taxes and are a large part of the City of Banning.

I'm a Senior, age 84 at the present time and am very concerned about the quality of the enviornment, and air quality which would undoubtedly be affected by a warehouse so close to my home.

I'm requesting you to reconsider at the June 11, 2024 meeting.

If this was your Mother what would your choice be?
Thank You
Shirley J Dills
Sent from my iPhone
872
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Raymond Reddig
Tuesday, June 4, 2024 9:18 AM
cityclerks

BANNING POINT
As a citizen of Banning I object to the Banning point project [email protected] 1 RECEIVED
JUN O 4 2024
City of Banning
Citv Clerk's Office
873
From: Barbara Jesus <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 12:04 PM

RECEIVED
To: Sandra Calderon <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Hearing May 28, 2024 Review 21-7008 ETC City of Banning
Ci Clerk's Office
We submit some of these links to support why these trucking operations should not be put near our residential communities.

Minority Population means any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by a proposed USDOT program, policy or activity. • Low-Income means a person whose median household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. • LowIncome Population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by a proposed USDOT program, policy or activity. Besides the minority and low-income populations, elderly people and children are particularly vulnerable to potential health impacts brought by freight. In this analysis, these populations are defined as below:• The Elderly Population refers to the people that are 65 years and older. • Children refers to the people who are under 10 years of age. https://www.ehn.org/diesel-truck-air-pollution-2655321340.html Diesel trucks are causing environmental
injustice across US cities
Low-income people of color in the U.S. are exposed to
28% more nitrogen dioxide (N02) in the air they breathe compared to their wealthier white counterparts, a new
study using satellite measurements reports.
www.ehn.org
874
https ://www.edf.org/med ia/ edf-re port-air-pol I ution-wa rehou se-trucks-places-u neg ua I-burden-communitiescolor-a nd-a reas #J-- Environmental ~ Defense ~ Fund
EDF Report Air Pollution from
Warehouse Trucks Places Unequal
Burden on Communities of Color and
Areas of Low Wealth
Growth of delivery brings more warehouses, diesel trucks and associated health impacts closer to communities
www.edf.org
https://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Driving-Harm.pdf Barbara and Jay Jesus -909-915-4320
2 875
LuAnn Green
April 20, 2024
Mayor - Alberto Sanchez
Mayor Pro Tern. - Rick Minjares
Council Member - Sheri Flynn, David Happe; Collen Wallace Topic - Bannin Point Project

RECEIVED
MAY 2 4 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
Before you make a decision a new Traffic and Safety Study is necessary. It should be conducted at various times of day. If one was performed it was conducted at the wrong time of day.

Anyone that has driven on Highland Springs both North & South of the 10 freeway will tell you it is a congested mess at peak hours and on weekends. Adding even more 18 wheelers to the this area would be a dangerous nightmare. Someone should ask the Highway Patrol (located right on Highland Springs) for their input.

Please think this through. Thank you,
LuAnn M. Green
2445 Birdie Drive, Ban nin , Ca 92220
1 876
To: The Banning City Council l3/JU#/N6_- Po/JJT PRt:JJGCT The residents of Sun Lakes Country Club chose to move into the community because it met the needs of these residents who were entering the latter stages of their life. The surrounding community offered a slower pace of life with adequate resources for their everyday needs. The air quality was good. The traffic was moderate. The neighbors were nice. The city was looking after the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and the community.

This approach to choosing where you live is likely not so different from how some members of the City Council choose the homes they live in. They want a safe, clean neighborhood with a quality school close to home for their children and not too far from work. We ask the Council:

If your children s school is shut down or there was a factory constructed across the street from the school that produced constant fumes and noise surrounding the playground, would you consider re-locating to another neighborhood? As a person who is 30 to 50 years younger than most Sun Lakes residents, you have the option to re-locate.

We, in Sun Lakes, are not in our prime earning years and our options are limited due to health issues and reduced income. We ask the City Council to delay any vote on the Banning Point Project until after they take into consideration that Sun Lakes Country Club alone represents nearly 20 percent of Banning's total residential population, and this population is going to be negatively affected by the development of the Banning Point Project for the rest of their natural lives.

We ask the Banning City Council to also take into consideration that the City is still looking for land to develop low density and/or medium density housing. A small apartment complex built to house our own Banning seniors whose income would not allow them to purchase or rent homes in Sun Lakes would be a godsend to many. The City is also trying to encourage the reopening of a new Department of Motor Vehicles building. With so many seniors within a twoor three-mile radius of this property, a medical facility providing medical specialists would be well supported. A facility like this would bring residents from many of the surrounding cities to take advantage of Banning's Specialist facility. Any of these options could be developed on the Banning Point 4 7 acres. Consider promoting and soliciting developers for these types of projects. Allow the current developer to re-locate to an area farther away from existing, mature developments designed to house seniors, and allow the current developer to negotiate with the owners of one of the many empty warehouses already collecting dust.

PR/HT YOOR HAN£ S/epV YOOR HAM£ STR££T AOORifSS
L!.1/:J)JJJ M. G££EJJ .~ ,e7~ &~1_ 244S- !3/£.ZJIE ZJ£. 877
---- :: ~~
1,/6~E8J
24,<JS 13/0JJE D.R
13/J}J/JJ )fc;_J eA O nzza
SN BERNARDINO CA ~
22 APR 2024 PM 4 L
923 ~
~
.::=::::

AlLJ!Xl{) SJi)ICJ/cZ- C!J!JIJu!_
13/l/l)Jl)J ti Cl 1Y /.-IA!_!..
~ 9 ~ £4MSEY J T.
l3/lJJJJJJJ6J CA, ?Z220
s2220-::..1-s:::r7gg ,11,IJ 111,1,, ,,,1 I' JJllt ,lJI I 11 ,p 11I11111111 I 1111 I• I• 1i --,.
878
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. ThJ~ document is ~____etJblic record suble!cUo disc;l<J~u~~_un9er the Public _F~~c_o_rd_s_A_c_t. ____ _ Name ~ P-1t-l S-e,a-.~l'hc
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7 · l Topic
Support E(' Oppose □
.

Comments
0001 879
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. _____ _ Name ,Jo~Ar'iA-/'J VA\L,\;.'-{
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7. \ Topic
Support til Oppose □
Comments
0002 880
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name faLS'f- 2-A r--'l O <LA
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 1 . \ Topic
Support ~ Oppose □
Comments
0003 881
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name I \ /: ,.,, .... \ V\ \ 0--- \~ -c... 6'-r
~onta~t Information I ( q S\) ·--:? 17 - s er (__ l ~~~~ ' ') ~ ~ - Agenda Item No. I ·;,.. \ I Topic I ~ ~J ~ V\ l(J 2 L/- / 7 LfSupport □ Oppose)Q Comments
-r=- 1 ~ V\ cl -{ a u c> \cc V\f\. 'f- cc> n ce t-~
0-\Jo u. + --th l ~ µ rn_j< <f2L f- 0-. LA d , -:5 p czctJ::_ 01w ¼ -i V\o w I IA a. f pvor la I :p , 1 r -'_ t tt °' i u IA I a"'- hA ii JF r s c,1___ r c:_ h ~ t c-+ _:? s@ u ~ I w e~ ~)~(_'\/ rl {) ]/1, ol l I u e__ \ V\ C{ Ill vu )/1 0004 882~
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

Comments
°?. I
w~
?~~-
Topic -1~--oldJ'cf) ~
Support □ Oppose ~
883
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. _____ _ Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

Comments
s-'J'.'.2--- ~~rJo.e-r S.f;J ~J
7 / I Topic I ~\A..~/
Support □ Oppose t8.

Ct-! 92;;1-~ ) _ --
f rD', Q_0
00 0 ◄ 884
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name /fJ IC/I Ecc/ u/4 GCJe
Contact Information /-/;I~ S-IY v I t!I)) 9S/ r)tJ~ f'!JO <J (if desired) Agenda Item No. 7. I Topic 131J,1.Jiu;1v (;,, /ot1b1
Support □ Oppose ~
Comments
885
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This docLJment is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. .....-:-- cc, 'l'f' J. -9_Q V\ Name _\ Q Y1'\ e-c:S ..,.., Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7. I Topic Bunnt,1,Q fe1J1f€.-
y
Support □ Oppose';Ec'
Comments
0009 886
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name f H S Q; vv ch.& 'LContact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 1 .1 Topic
Support pose □
Comments
0010 887
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. ______ _ Name ~ b\" ~ ¼~ Q.~~
Contact
(if desired)
Information ~
Agenda Item No. / . / Topic 6€'1 cv t.v ' '"\l C:, 7o,~ Support □ Oppose~
M°J'-<)77'§ ...__, S""re,11:5..,E T
Comments
.
888
f\O Lo~v-pv-e~V\Jt CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if approp_riate. This d~~ument is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

Comments
J A )J e-J r/A fJ)V)4PiJ~
<1 , I Topic (3
Support □ Oppose □
001 ~
889
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name I / /,I'/' : ._ '/"\ 1- (!eR.. V YH.}-P--.S
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

Comments
·7 .; Topic
Support □ Oppose □
00 15
890
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name N/ck ( 1 U t(l b(;,J-vA
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. ;. I Topic
Support i;t" Oppose □
Comments
00 1b 891
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name ANv0-~---vJ MA~oQ0A
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 'l- \ Topic
Support fZ3 Oppose □
Comments
0018 892
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name ¼A L--rH ~ E-t.--A 1> o \2--
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. "!, I Topic
Support ~ Oppose □
Comments
0019
893
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name
Contact Information
_:;r 5/7??fe / m0,4 k7) (if desired)
Agenda Item No. 2_ Topic D~ /t1 ? B / n. --I /
Support □ Oppose '9<
Comments
00 2.L 894
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name IR''Dyi) Ro"'!
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. (,) Topic B1tww1wt" rorvV(
Support □ Oppose Qi
Comments
00 22 895
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record ~ bject to disclosure under the Public_~eco__r_d_s_A_c_t. ____ _ Name Jocse (~d.~ \lo
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7, ( Topic
Suppo~ Oppose □
Comments
0020 896
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name ~-G-G (--..A .a PA I\...,
Contact Information --- (if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7 l Topic
Support 'Jl Oppose □
Comments
0023 897
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a_p_l.l~lic record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name M~v,·o Gi e,c,wvl, 0 ~
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7 . / Topic
Support 129 Oppose □
Comments
~ - --- 898
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

Comments
--S-r-~
'r. \ S~\.._~ VtL-~
') I Topic ~~le::_~ 'zr1-'\itt<-¼J{;o~t'cf;> ~ ~,-J
Support □ Oppose □
-,--:--t<-~~ °"'" l..\,c.,A-~ S,-i)fU~~~,_j~
002G
~
899
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name Efu,V\ LUNG? ~ - Vv-~i ~ l lvNA - \.,
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7~ I Topic
Support liJ Oppose □
'
Comments
dJll 900
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name r7c)YJc7'7 ~~1 .<--
Contact Information (; 1 h :- b 3£ - /Cl s> 'is (if desired) Agenda Item No. >. I Topic
Supp~ Oppose □
Comments
002-i
901
\~+@f·.sove_a_s
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name ~OVv\ ~a_ Gu~~ ~-+-
Contact Information
(if desired) (os;o - % d"\ ~ ~-:s '2/ 0 \
Agenda Item No. 7~ I Topic ~~o½ a;Ja LI - I i LJ
Support □ Oppose ~
Comments
001 4
902
uJ\~'vQuJV\
CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. This document ]§._.a__Qublic record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

Comments
'-
~1
Topic o(U-·{t c>Vl - \ \</-
Support □ Oppose ~
ooo s 903
Banning Point Addendum / Consistency Checklist
to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment
No. 5 Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:

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

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

MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
Original: November 2021
Updated: February 10, 2022
904
- This document is designed for double-sided printing - 905
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan i
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................ 110 906
Table of Contents
ii City of Banning

6.3 – Bibliography............................................................................................................ 110 List of Tables
Table 1 Banning Point Project v. SLVNSP – Consistency Analysis...................................................... 3 Table 2 Warehouse Specifications and Requirements....................................................................... 14 Table 3 Retail Buildings Specifications and Requirements ................................................................ 15 Table 4 Surrounding Land Uses and General Plan and Zoning Designations.................................... 17 Table 5 Air Quality Impacts from Project Construction....................................................................... 30 Table 6 Air Quality Impacts from Project Operation ........................................................................... 30 Table 7 Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Construction ..................................... 33 Table 8 Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Operation.......................................... 33 Table 9 Project GHG Emissions ........................................................................................................ 54 Table 10 Construction - Exterior Noise Levels ................................................................................... 70 Table 11 Construction – Interior Noise Impacts ................................................................................ 70 Table 12 Operational Noise Levels .................................................................................................... 72 Table 13 Operational Noise Level Compliance .................................................................................. 72 Table 14 Noise Impact Significance Criteria ...................................................................................... 73 Table 15 Operational Noise Level Increase ....................................................................................... 73 Table 16 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Impacts ......................................................................... 74 Table 17 Year 2040 Traffic Noise Impacts ......................................................................................... 75 Table 18 Construction Vibration Impacts ........................................................................................... 76 Table 19 Project Trip Generation vs. PEIR Estimate.......................................................................... 82 Table 20 Project Employment Estimate ............................................................................................. 85 Table 21 Project VMT Per Employee................................................................................................. 86 Table 22 VMT Per Employee Comparison......................................................................................... 86 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Specific Plan Location Map ................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2 Specific Plan Area Map......................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................. 12 Exhibit 4 Modeled Source Area Map.................................................................................................. 35 Exhibit 5 Sensitive Receptor Locations.............................................................................................. 37 Exhibit 6: Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations................................................................................... 69 Exhibit 7: Operational Noise Source Locations .................................................................................. 71 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, & Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Appendix B Traffic Assessment
Appendix C Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Appendix D Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
907
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan iii EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
908
909
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 1
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

CEQA Guidelines § 15164(a) provides that the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Subsection (c) further provides that an “addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final 910
Introduction
2 City of Banning
EIR,” and subsection (e) states that a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included” in the addendum, the agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record.

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

Per the above, this Addendum functions as both an “addendum” and a “written checklist,” as called for in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15164(a) and 15168(c)(4). As such, this Addendum analyzes the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects disclosed in the PEIR consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15162.
911
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 3
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
As detailed in this Addendum, no further CEQA review is required for the Project beyond the PEIR and this Addendum because (1) the Project will not have new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the PEIR, (2) all applicable mitigation measures in the PEIR will be incorporated into the Project’s approval, and (3) the Project will not require any new mitigation measures.

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

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

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

16.2%
Will be built per Code
Yes
Lighting Zoning Code Sect 17.12.170 Will be built per Code Yes Walls and
Fences5
Zoning Code Sect 17.24.080 Will be built per Code
and SLVNSP
Yes
Signs Zoning Code Chapter 17.36 Will be built per Code Yes Sources: Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Tables 1 and 2 (11-4-20), PEIR (10-28-20), Banning Point Conceptual Plan dated 9-29-20, Revised Landscape Plan (8-4-21), and revised Project Plans (August 2021). 912
Introduction
4 City of Banning
NOTES
BW Business & Warehouse District
FAR Floor Area Ratio (building area/site area)
NA Not Applicable
RS Retail & Service District
SF Square Feet
SLVNSP Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan
SP Specific Plan
1 SLVNSP Table 1, Allowable Land Uses
2 SP numbers based on industrial park and commercial retail uses evaluated in PEIR 3 Architectural projections and focal elements may exceed the height limit up to 25 percent. 4 Per Zoning Code Chapter 17.28 based on building type and square footage 5 Per Code except walls and fences may exceed the maximum height specified in the Banning Zoning Code to satisfy the screening requirements of the SLVNSP Design Guidelines.

There are no substantial changes resulting from the Project or the circumstances in which the Project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the PEIR. The Project does not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As such, this Addendum analysis is the appropriate method of CEQA compliance for the Project. 913
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 5
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 1
Specific Plan Location Map
914
Introduction
6 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
915
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 7
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 2
Specific Plan Area Map
916
Introduction
8 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
917
Introduction
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 9
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
918
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 10
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
2 Project Description

2.1 – Project Title
Banning Point

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

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

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

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

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

6.83 acres. It is located on the southern edge of the plan area adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard. The land use objectives for this district are to provide convenient shopping and neighborhood-related 919
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 11
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
services to meet the daily needs of nearby residents, create high quality development adjacent to the Sun Lakes Boulevard frontage, and screen development within the Business & Warehouse District. The SLVNSP also provides for improvements to the circulation system, increased on-street parking, streetscape improvements, and enhanced development standards and design guidelines.

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

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

2.7 – Zoning District
Specific Plan:

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

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

Industrial Warehouse. The industrial warehouse would be developed on the northern portion of the site that consists of 30.22 acres. The warehouse building would include approximately 619,959 square feet of high-cube warehouse space, with approximately 154,990 square feet dedicated to high-cube cold storage use (or 25% of floor area), a permitted use under the SLVNSP, and approximately 10,000 square feet dedicated to office uses; potential locations for office space are identified at the corners of the building. Approximately Fifty-seven (57) truck dock doors would be located along the northern side of the building and 57 dock doors would be located along the southern side. Parking spaces to accommodate trucks would be located in the vicinity of the truck dock doors. Car parking 920
Project Description
12 City of Banning
Exhibit 3
Site Plan
921
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 13
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
922
Project Description
14 City of Banning
would be generally located east and west of the building. The warehouse building would be single-story and approximately 47.5 feet tall. The northern portion of the site that would include the warehouse development would include approximately 112,998 square feet of landscaping, comprising approximately 16.23 percent of the site area. The warehouse development will provide approximately 391 standard parking stalls and 11 ADA accessible stalls (402 total stalls). The proposed industrial warehouse building would have a total of approximately 114 dock doors, 153 truck trailer parking stalls, 9 short term bicycle parking stalls, and 9 long-term bicycle parking stalls. Table 2 (Warehouse Specifications and Requirements) provides a summary of the warehouse specifications as well as relevant development provisions.

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

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

Front
Side
Rear
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
185 feet
70 feet
185 feet
Building Coverage 55% 47%
Landscape Coverage 15% of lot minus
building area 16.23%
Fence/Wall Height 8 feet Fence – 8 feet
Wall – 14 feet
Parking Requirements
Office – 1 space per 300 s.f. 34 40
Warehouse Parking – 22 spaces plus
1 space per 2,000 s.f. over 20k s.f. 317 362
1 NOTE: all numerical values are approximate
The industrial warehouse building would be constructed with concrete tilt-up walls with painted and scored accents. The design provides glazing and color variation along the length of the industrial warehouse building. The exterior elevations uses a combination of materials and colors. The warehouse building will use paint by Sherwin-Williams with colors Extra White with Gray Screen, Software, and Cyberspace with trims of Heartthrob between the gray panels. There are aluminum windows and door frames with tempered glazing in a blue reflective color that will be located on the wall panels, the building corners, and the four potential office areas. There are Metal Canopies with Pure White and clear 923
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 15
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
Anodized Mullions to accent the building. The proposed 14-foot concrete tilt-up walls will screen the truck yards and the colors will match the paint and color variations of the warehouse building.

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

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

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

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

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

34.9%
Fence/Wall Height 6 feet N/A
Parking Requirements
Drive Thru – 1 space per 100 s.f. 16 16
Retail – 1 space per 250 s.f. 130 273
1 NOTE: all numerical values are approximate
924
Project Description
16 City of Banning
Access and Circulation
The Project has one driveway on Sun Lakes Village Drive and two driveways on Sun Lakes Boulevard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surrounding uses are summarized in Table 4 (Surrounding Land Uses and General Plan and Zoning Designations) below and as shown in Exhibit 2.
925
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 17
EIR Addendum/Consistency Determination
Table 4
Surrounding Land Uses and General Plan and Zoning Designations Direction General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land Use Project
Site
Business Park with Specific Plan
Overlay and General
Commercial with Specific Plan
Overlay
Specific Plan: Business
& Warehouse, Office &
Professional, and Retail
& Service
Vacant Land
North Public Facilities/ Rights-of-Way N/A Interstate-10 UPRR & SPR Railroads
South Public Facilities/ Rights-of-Way
Medium Density Residential
Sun Lakes Specific
Plan
Sun Lakes Boulevard
Single-Family Residences
East
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing Opportunity
Sun Lakes Specific
Plan
Senior Apartments
Single-Family Residences
West General Commercial (with
Specific Plan Overlay)
Sun Lakes Specific
Plan
Commercial Shopping
Center

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

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

2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
• None
926
Project Description
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 18
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
927
Banning Point/Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan 19
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
3 Determination

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

3.2 – Determination
□
The Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□
Although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □
The Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□
The Project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

The Project could have a significant effect on the environment, but all of its potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION. As such, no further environmental documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required.
928
Determination
20 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
929
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 21
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the environmental categories in terms of any changed conditions from the approved SLVNSP to the proposed Project (e.g., project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance) that may produce a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). As such, the Addendum’s checklist analysis uses the standard environmental categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed in Guidelines § 15162(a).

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the PEIR was certified, shows any of the following:
930
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
22 City of Banning
(A) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous PEIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous PEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

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

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

Conclusion
Each section ends with a summary of the conclusion of the preceding analysis. 931
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 23
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.1 – Aesthetics
Would the Project:

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

If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic quality?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Scenic Vistas. The SLVNSP and surrounding areas contain no designated scenic vistas although San Gorgonio Mountain and the San Bernardino Mountains are visible to the north and northeast. The surrounding lands contain largely suburban scale developed land uses and neighborhoods. The SLVNSP PEIR determined the SLVNSP would have less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required. Since the proposed Project would be developed under the SLVNSP, it would have similar less-than-significant impacts to scenic vistas.
932
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
24 City of Banning
(b) Visual Resources within a State Scenic Highway. There are no roadways in the SLVNSP area that are designated or eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway or locally designated scenic route.

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

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

Conclusion. As analyzed in the PEIR, the proposed Project would comply with the City’s night-time light regulation and would thus have less than significant impacts. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
933
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 25
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No No Impact No No No
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No No Impact No No No
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code section
4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code
section 51104 (g))?
No No Impact No No No
934
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
26 City of Banning
Would the Project:

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

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

Because forest land is not present on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, the 935
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 27
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
(e) Conversion of Land. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifies the Project site as Farmland of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing or has the capability of production; but does not meet the criteria of Prime, Statewide or Unique Farmland.

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

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

Therefore, no unanticipated impact would occur.

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

As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 936
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
28 City of Banning

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

Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
No Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
Project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
No Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely
affecting a substantial
number of people?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Conflict with AQMP. The SLVNSP area is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and subject to the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a proposed project's consistency with the 2016 AQMP is assessed under two criteria:
• Criterion 1. Would the proposed project be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP? Growth forecasts and associated assumptions are included in the 2016 AQMP, which are designed to achieve attainment for all criteria air pollutants within the Basin while still accommodating growth in the region. Projects that are consistent with the AQMP growth assumptions would not interfere with attainment of air quality standards because their growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. 937
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 29
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
• Criterion 2. Would the proposed project increase the frequency or severity of a violation of air quality standards or cause a new violation? This refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (page D-3, SCAQMD 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5 (Air Quality Impacts from Project Construction) shows the estimated “worst case” maximum daily emissions from Project construction compared to the SCAQMD thresholds. Table 5 demonstrates 938
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
30 City of Banning
that construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds, so unlike the SLVNSP project, this impact is less than significant. Although no Project-specific mitigation is required, during construction, the Project will still implement PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 regarding painting and AQ-2 regarding grading, as well as SCAQMD construction-related regulations, such as for dust control.

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

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

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

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

It should also be noted that the Project will eventually have to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305 regarding truck-related warehouse emissions. In May 2021, the SCAQMD adopted the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule which seeks to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions produced by light- and heavy-duty trucks and tractor-trailers (mainly diesel) traveling to and from warehouses by 939
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 31
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
regulating the owners and operators of warehouse facilities considered to be the “indirect source” of those emissions. Rule 2305 implements SCAQMD’s Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program and applies to owners and operators of existing and new warehouses within the South Coast Air Basin. Warehouse operators must earn a specific number of points (called WAIRE Points) through emissions-reducing activities or payment of mitigation fees to offset the number of truck trips to and from warehouses under their control. Warehouse operators incur their WAIRE Points obligations on a weighted basis, with, until 2026, larger obligations for larger warehouse facilities, and for warehouses hosting larger vehicles (e.g., tractors or tractor-trailers). Rule 2305 will be phased in over three years, applying to larger warehouses first. The Initial Compliance Period begins on January 1, 2022 for warehouses 250,000 square feet or more, on January 1, 2023 for warehouses 150,000 feet or more, and on January 1, 2024 for warehouses 100,000 square feet or more. Although it is likely that compliance with Rule 2305 will decrease the Project’s emissions, in order to prepare a more conservative analysis, no reductions in emissions are assumed. While the PEIR concludes that the SLVNSP's construction and operational impacts are significant and unavoidable, the Project's impacts are not significant and thus less than the impacts specified in the PEIR.

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

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

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

Operation
AQ-3 Electrical Hookups for Loading Docks. Trucks accessing the Project site may have auxiliary power units (APU) and/or transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Therefore, electrical hookups shall be installed at all loading docks, and to reduce/replace APU use while trucks 940
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
32 City of Banning
are parked along the docks, to allow trucks with APU and/or TRUs with electric standby capabilities to plug in when TRUs are in use to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions. The City shall verify electrical hookups have been installed prior to occupancy.

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

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

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

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

LSTs - Construction
Pursuant to MM AQ-2 of the PEIR, the following analysis is presented to determine if the proposed Project would be required to implement any limitations on grading activity to prevent localized air quality 941
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 33
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. The SCAQMD has established that air quality impacts are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) which represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. Table 7 (Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Construction) summarizes the Project’s localized construction emissions compared to the applicable thresholds. Table 7 indicates emissions from Project construction will not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and are therefore less than significant. No mitigation beyond that outlined in the PEIR would be required (MM AQ-1 and AQ-2) for construction impacts.

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

Table 8
Local Significance Thresholds – Impacts from Project Operation Total Maximum
Daily Emissions
Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project 6.1 6.9 1.9 0.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 236.0 2,817.0 10.0 3.0
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Source: Table 6, UR 2021a
1 Emission results rounded off from UR 2021 report
Health Risk Assessment
Pursuant to PEIR MM AQ-7, a diesel health risk assessment (HRA) has been prepared for the proposed warehouse project. This analysis evaluates the potential mobile source health risk impacts to receptors (i.e., local residents or workers) associated with the development of the Project. Health risk exposures were modeled in accordance with guidelines issued by the SCAQMD and the State Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). The boundaries of the modeled source area are shown in Exhibit 4 (Modeled Source Area Map). To assess the potential for long-term operational impacts, the HRA identified the following five (5) receptor locations, as shown on Exhibit 5 (Sensitive 942
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
34 City of Banning
Receptor Locations), as representative of the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site for more detailed analysis. All distances were measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever was closer to the Project site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.01, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold of 1.0. Therefore, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk at any potentially affected receptors, and no specific HRA-related mitigation is required.
943
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 35
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 4
Modeled Source Area Map
944
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 City of Banning
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
945
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 37
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 5
Sensitive Receptor Locations
946
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
38 City of Banning
(d) Other Emissions. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding or any manufacturing uses that could create objectionable odors. The PEIR concluded that the SLVNSP would have a less than significant impact with respect to creating objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people because it would not include any of these types of uses. Because the Project similarly does not include such uses, it would also have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Conclusion. The PEIR indicated that development of the SLVNSP would result in significant air quality impacts in terms of AQMP consistency and cumulative air pollutant emissions exceeding established standards. However, the Project proposes approximately 30 percent less development on the site compared to that evaluated in the PEIR. The Project’s Air Quality Assessment indicates the Project would not conflict with the AQMP and would not result in air pollutant emissions that would exceed or cause violations of established standards. A health risk assessment for the Project was also prepared per the PEIR’s MM AQ-7. The Project will implement MMs AQ-1 through AQ-6 as recommended in the PEIR. In these ways, the Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 947
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 39
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.4 – Biological Resources
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by
the California Department
of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
No No Impact No No No
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
No No Impact No No No
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
No No Impact No No No
948
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
40 City of Banning
Would the Project:

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

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

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

A total of 15 wildlife species (mostly birds) were detected during the PEIR’s survey. No federal or state-listed endangered or threatened species were observed. The site is not within USFWS designated critical habitat for any listed wildlife species. No special status wildlife species were observed. Most listed or special status species are not expected to occur or have low potential for occurrence except as described below.
949
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 41
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
No burrowing owls, occupied burrows, or owl sign was observed during the PEIR’s survey.

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

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

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

Unless otherwise authorized by CDFW and/or the RCA, a 250‐foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31 or based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. For burrowing owls present during the nonbreeding season (generally September 1 to January 31), a 150‐foot buffer zone will be maintained around the occupied burrow(s).
b. If there is any possibility that owls will be injured or killed as a result of construction activities, the birds may be passively relocated during the nonbreeding season in coordination with the City, RCA, and CDFW. Relocation of owls will be performed by a qualified biologist using one‐way doors, which should be installed in all burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. Immediately prior to the initiation of grading, these one‐way doors will be removed and the burrows backfilled. To avoid the potential for owls evicted from a burrow to occupy other burrows in the impact area, 950
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 City of Banning
one‐ way doors will be placed in all potentially suitable burrows in the impact area when eviction occurs.
c. Preparation of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan may be required if active and/or passive relocation is necessary. The relocation plan will outline the basic process and provides options for avoidance and mitigation. The relocation plan will be approved by the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW prior to implementation.

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

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

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

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

Soil types mapped (and observed) onsite are not consistent with an alkali playa or vernal pool complex. Pools or depressions characteristic of vernal pool habitat were not observed onsite. No Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) species listed for protection associated with riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools were observed. No evidence of ponding was observed onsite. Tire ruts are present on an access road along the northern site 951
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 43
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
boundary, but the ruts were dry at the time of the survey and soils onsite are sandy to coarse sandy loam (i.e., well drained). Therefore, there will be no impacts to riparian or sensitive habitat. (c) Wetlands. As described in the PEIR, there are no USGS mapped blue-line streams onsite. A shallow trench is present along the site’s southern boundary (along Sun Lakes Boulevard) and trends from west to east. A double culvert is present at the southeast corner of the site. A small area of willow thicket is present in the southwest corner of the site in association with a trench.

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures
BIO-3 Native Tree Removal. Native trees to be impacted by development of projects pursuant to the Specific Plan shall be assessed by a certified arborist as to the viability and value of the trees to determine if mitigation and replacement are required. Removal of healthy, shade-providing, and aesthetically valuable trees shall be strongly discouraged and shall conform with the policies and programs of the City of Banning General Plan. A tree removal and replacement plan shall be required for the removal and replacement of all trees more than 50 years of age unless their removal is required to protect the public health and safety. Each identified tree removed shall be replaced with at least one 36- inch box specimen tree, in addition to any other required landscaping. (f) Habitat Conservation Plans. As described in the PEIR, the Project site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP, a regional Habitat Conservation Plan was adopted on June 17, 2003. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special‐status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to sensitive species. Based on the Habitat Assessment (Appendix D of the PEIR):
952
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
44 City of Banning
1) The site is not mapped within any MSHCP Criteria Cell or subunit. 2) The site is not mapped within an area where additional surveys are required for any Amphibian, Mammal, or other Criteria Area Species.
3) The project will not impact any Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool areas. 4) The site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Conservation Areas and therefore does not require mitigation measures pursuant Section 6.1.4 (pertaining to Urban/ Wildlands Interface) of the MSHCP, which presents guidelines to minimize indirect effects of Projects in proximity to the MSCHP Conservation Areas.
5) The site is mapped within a Burrowing Owl (BUOW) required habitat suitability assessment survey area. Therefore, to be thorough, a habitat suitability assessment for BUOW was conducted during site visit. The result of the assessment was that no BUOW habitat or BUOW sign was detected on site, and this species is currently considered absent from the Project area.

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

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

Conclusion. The Project site does not contain wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive plants or animals, or other important biological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, potential impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. In these ways, the Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
953
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 45
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.5 – Cultural Resources
Would the Project:

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

As described in the PEIR, the Project area was once part of Stewart Ranch, owned and operated by Reznor P. Stewart between 1883 and 1933 and by his daughters Laura May and Clara between 1933 and 1967. L&L, which prepared cultural resources reports for the PEIR, identified a linear resource (RPGX-1H) in the Project area consisting of an earthen bermed ditch constructed by a bulldozer sometime before 1953 and associated with water control/conveyance efforts instituted on the ranch along Potrero Creek and Smith Creek. RPGX-1H was evaluated and recommended not eligible for the CRHR and does not qualify as a historic resource under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impact to a significant historic resource.
(b) Archaeological Resources. As described in the PEIR, the Project area appears to have low sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources, and it is unlikely that intact, subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits would be uncovered during Project construction. Grading of the site would therefore have a low to moderate sensitivity in terms of revealing archaeological resources. Thus, there are no impacts and no mitigation measures are required based on the results of the cultural resources assessment. For additional information on tribal cultural resources, which can be related to archaeological resources, see impacts and mitigation discussed in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources.
954
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 City of Banning
(c) Human Remains. As described in the PEIR, the Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. If human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with established health and safety regulations will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.

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

NOTE. As a result of Native American Consultation (NAC) under SB 18, the PEIR did include mitigation for unanticipated discovery of cultural resources as outlined in this document under Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources. No additional NAC is required for this consistency analysis. 955
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 47
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.6 – Energy
Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

Therefore, there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for the estimated net increase in electricity demands, and buildout under the proposed Project would not require expanded electricity supplies.
956
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 City of Banning
As shown in Table 4.5-5 of the PEIR, the Project would generate a net increase in natural gas demand of approximately 248,201 KBTU/yr. This net increase is well within the Southern California Gas Company’s systemwide natural gas supplies of approximately 923 million therms during the 2017 period. The proposed Project is a part of the planned development under the SLVNSP and proposes less development than evaluated within the PEIR. Therefore, there are sufficient planned natural gas supplies in the region for the estimated net increase in natural gas demands, and buildout under the proposed Project would not require expanded natural gas supplies.

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

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

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

Conclusion. The Project would not result in a wasteful use of energy or conflict with energy plans. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 957
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 49
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.7 – Geology and Soils
Would the Project:

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

No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) Landslides? No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that
would become unstable
as a result of the
Project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
958
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 City of Banning
Would the Project:

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

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

As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct the proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. The City’s Building and Safety Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process, would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels. 959
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 51
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
(b) Erosion. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site has been historically graded and is regularly grubbed/disced, and the loss of topsoil is not a significant impact. Soils in the Project area are particularly prone to erosion during the grading phase, especially during heavy rains. Reduction of the erosion potential can be accomplished through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies Best Management Practices for temporary erosion controls.

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

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

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Proponent shall prepare a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) for the grading and excavation phase of the Project, including both on- and off -site activities. The PRIMP shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Banning Community Development Department and shall conform to the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; including the following:
960
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 City of Banning
a) A trained paleontological monitor shall be present during initial mass grading or deep trenching activities within the Project in sediment areas determined likely to contain paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are located within excavation, the monitoring program will change to full-time. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. The monitor shall be equipped to rapidly remove any large fossil specimens encountered during excavation. During monitoring, samples shall be collected and processed to recover microvertebrate fossils. Processing shall include wet screen washing and microscopic examination of the residual materials to identify small vertebrate remains. Upon encountering a large deposit of bone, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted in accordance with modern paleontological techniques. All fossils collected during the Project shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the museum repository along with the specimens. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities and the significance of the fossils will be prepared. All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage. All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.

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

Conclusion. The proposed Project would either have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to geologic and soil constraints with implementation of standard grading, dust control, and erosion control measures and adhering to existing regulatory compliance. There are no unique geologic features at the Project site, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
961
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 53
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the Project:

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

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

Construction and operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 9. As shown, the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would exceed the applicable significance thresholds consistent with the finding identified in the PEIR. The Project’s GHG emissions would also slightly exceed what was anticipated in the PEIR, but this is not considered a new or substantially more severe impact than what was disclosed in the PEIR. The Project’s increase is only approximately 7%, which would not itself exceed the applicable significance threshold. This slight increase is considered a de minimis increase in the context of GHG as a global, rather than a national, statewide, regional, or local impact; globally it is estimated that the world emits approximately 50 billion tons of GHG emissions 962
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 City of Banning
annually. The proposed Project would also have to implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-6 prior to and during Project construction.

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

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

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

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

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

GHG-5 Efficient Building Materials/Equipment. The project will utilize building materials/methods and heating equipment that are efficient and reduce emissions that may include, but not limited to, high-efficiency heat pumps; thin insulating materials; windows and building 963
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 55
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
surfaces with tunable optical properties; high efficiency lighting devices; improved software for optimizing building design and operation; low cost, easy to install, energy harvesting sensors and controls; interoperable building communication systems; and optimized control strategies.

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

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

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

Conclusion. The PEIR determined that the entire SLVNSP would result in significant GHG emissions, including the planned development of the Project site for industrial and commercial uses. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate slightly higher emissions than what was disclosed in the PEIR, even after implementation of the mitigation identified in the PEIR. However, the Project’s slight increase in emissions is not considered to result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was disclosed by the PEIR. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 964
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 City of Banning

4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials
into the environment?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed school?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would it
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment?
No No Impact No No No
965
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 57
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
e) For a project located
within an airport land
use plan or, where
such a plan has not
been adopted, within
two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the
Project result in a
safety hazard or
excessive noise for
people residing or
working in the Project
area?
No No Impact No No No
f) Impair implementation
of or physically
interfere with an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
h) Expose people or
structures, either
directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of
loss, injury or death
involving wildland
fires?
No No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) and (b). Hazardous Materials. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, heavy equipment that would be used during construction of the Project would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The potential for accidental releases and spills of hazardous materials during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with future development that would be a reasonable consequence of the development of the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors are required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous 966
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 City of Banning
materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

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

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

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

4.5 miles west of the Banning Municipal Airport and is not within the Banning Municipal Airport Compatibility Plan. There is no impact.
(g) Emergency Plans. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the City does not have an established evacuation route; however, depending on the location and extent of an emergency, major surface streets could be utilized to route traffic through the City. The I-10 Freeway and State Highway 243 to State Route 79 are also major regional access routes serving the City which could be used during disaster events. Emergency access to the Project site is available from Sun Lakes Boulevard. During construction and long‐term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles to Sun Lakes Boulevard as required by the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of any public road that would impair or interfere with the implementation of evacuation procedures. Because the Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, impacts are less than significant. (h) Wildfire Risks. As described in the PEIR’s Initial Study, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and no impact would occur.
967
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 59
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Conclusion. As outlined above, the Project has no impact or less than significant impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, or wildfires. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the Project:

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

No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
968
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 City of Banning
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface
runoff in a manner
which would result
in flooding on- or
off-site;
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing
or planned
stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources
of polluted runoff; or
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
No No Impact No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control
plan or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Violate Water Quality Standards. The PEIR indicates the Project site is located within the Whitewater River Region, which includes the urbanized areas that lie approximately between Banning and the San Gorgonio Pass area to the northwest and the Salton Sea to the southeast. The area of Riverside County in the Whitewater River Region is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). The Project site is subject to the Whitewater River Region Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) which describes those activities and programs implemented by the Permittees to manage urban runoff to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit (MS4 Permit) for the Whitewater River Region. The Permittees have revised the SWMP to address 969
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 61
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
2013 MS4 Permit requirements related to the planning and permitting of New Development and Redevelopment Projects within their jurisdictions. The objective of the program is to ensure that controls are in place to prevent or minimize water quality impacts from New Development and Redevelopment Projects to the maximum extent practical (MEP).

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

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

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

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

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

The conceptual site plan for the Project (previous Exhibit 3) indicates a detention basin for the Project will be located in the southeast corner of the site which will prevent post-development increases in runoff from the site. To accomplish this the proposed basin will detain storm water much of which will eventually percolate back into the local groundwater supply. The design of the basin will be supported by hydrological calculations to demonstrate it will meet the established regulatory requirements of the City and County Flood Control District. Meeting these requirements is considered regulatory compliance and is not considered project-specific mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, water quality impacts of the Project will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (c) Alter Drainage Patterns. The PEIR indicates the Project is covered by the Master Drainage Plan for the City of Banning (“Drainage Plan”) prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”) in 1975. The Project site currently drains south toward to Sun Lakes Boulevard. The portion of the site which drains to Sun Lakes Boulevard, sheet flows to the existing storm drain system which then conveys the flows to Smith Creek to the east. Section 13.24.110 of the 970
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 City of Banning
City’s Municipal Code requires land development activities to manage stormwater runoff from the property. Control BMPs include constructing storage and/or infiltration facilities to store runoff from rainfall events up to and including the 100-year, 3-hour duration event. Post development peak urban runoff discharge rates would not exceed pre-development peak urban runoff discharge rates.

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

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

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

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

The State Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) classifies California’s 515 groundwater basins into one of four categories high, medium, low, or very low-priority. The Project site is located within the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Basin and is classified as “medium” priority. The SGMA requires medium- and high-priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. 971
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 63
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
The City of Banning in conjunction with other agencies is currently developing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Gorgonio Pass Sub-basin of the Coachella Basin. At this time, the Plan is not adopted but when approved it will manage and monitor groundwater affecting the Project area.

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

4.11 – Land Use and Planning
Would the Project:

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

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

Therefore, similar to the PEIR Initial Study conclusion, the Project will have no impact. (b) Conflict with Applicable Plans. The current General Plan land use designations are Business Park with Specific Plan Overlay and General Commercial with Specific Plan Overlay. The SLVNSP zoning 972
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 City of Banning
designations are Business & Warehouse, Office & Professional, and Retail & Service. The PEIR concluded that policies, standards, and regulations outlined in the SLVNSP were consistent with existing City land use regulations and would not conflict with existing General Plan policies, the Western Riverside County MSHCP, SCAG’s RTP/SCS goals, as well as a variety of other regulatory documents identified and outlined in the Land Use section of the PEIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR.

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

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

4.12 – Mineral Resources
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents
of the state?
No No Impact No No No
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan or other land use
plan?
No No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Designated Mineral Resources. As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project site is located within a mineral resource zone area classified as MRZ-3 as identified in Exhibit IV-8 in the City of 973
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 65
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Banning General Plan. Areas classified as MRZ-3 are defined as containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The City of Banning General Plan identifies one aggregate producer within its planning area; the Banning Quarry which is located in the eastern portion of the City approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the Project site. There are no mining operations on the Project site, and implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of known mineral resources.
(b) Local Mineral Designations. The SLVNSP identifies land uses within the Project site as Business & Warehouse District and Retail & Service District, which generally allow for warehouse, office, and retail uses. As such, the Project site is not delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. There is no impact.

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

4.13 – Noise
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise
levels?
No No Impact No No No
974
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 City of Banning
Would the Project:

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

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

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

Operational Noise. According to the PEIR, the General Plan noise limit associated with the Business & Warehouse (BW) and Retail & Service (RS) Districts of the SLVNSP are 75 db(A) during the daytime and 65 dB(A) at night (10 PM – 7 AM). The noise assessment prepared for the PEIR determined that noise from parking lot vehicle movements and truck unloading/dock activities around the warehouse could exceed these indicated standards. In addition, the PEIR concluded that truck deliveries to the commercial uses could also exceed these standards (PEIR Table 4.10.4, Project Operational Noise Level Impacts to Sensitive Receptors (RPG 2020a)). The PEIR recommended Mitigation Measure NOI2 once specific development plans were proposed to ensure the warehouse and commercial uses on the site would not have significant operational noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors to the east and south of the Project site. PEIR Table 4.10-5 demonstrated that the SLVNSP would not have significant operational traffic-related noise impacts on surrounding land uses. 975
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 67
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Mitigation Measures
Construction
NOI-1 Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
1) The project applicant shall limit construction activities to the daytime hours between 7 AM to 6 PM, as prescribed in Section 8.44.090(E) of the City’s Municipal Code. 2) For all project construction zones, all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturer’s standards.
3) For all project construction zones, stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. If such stationary equipment produces noise emissions that are directional, said equipment shall be oriented to direct noise emissions away from sensitive receptors. 4) For all project construction zones, stockpiling and staging should be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
5) For construction activity within 50 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of construction and be located between the single-family residences, senior apartments/assisted living/memory care residential facility and the construction zone and all sensitive receptors. The temporary sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that will meet the City’s construction noise threshold of 55 dBA. The noise barrier shall be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 35 or greater. The barrier can be either (a) a ¾-inchthick plywood wall OR (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.7 or higher.

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

8.44.090(E) and 4.10 NOISE 4.10-11 in the City’s Noise Element are maintained at nearby residences. Compliance can be achieved with (a) sufficient buffering distances so that nearby sensitive receptors are not significantly impacted by future commercial development OR (b) sufficiently high and long sound barrier wall(s) that are placed between commercial noise sources and receptors (for example, in the case of garbage compactor equipment) OR (c) other adequate noise reduction methods that are approved by the Planning Director or their designee. In all cases, the noise reduction measures shall be technically demonstrated to achieve the appropriate target noise level(s) for both exterior and interior environments for 976
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 City of Banning
nearby residences, as appropriate (e.g., sufficient wall or berm height, sufficient buffering distance, appropriate sound encapsulation/insulation methods, etc.). The individual project owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into the future development.

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

Construction. Using appropriate reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, the noise assessment calculated the Project’s construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations, as shown in Exhibit 6, Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location.
977
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 69
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 6: Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations
978
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 City of Banning
As shown in Table 10, Construction – Exterior Noise Levels, the exterior noise levels from construction are expected to range from 48.9 to 69.0 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 60.9 to 69.0 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations from the SLVNSP planning area.

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

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

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

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

Table 12, Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 38.4 to 47.5 dBA Leq.
979
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 71
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Exhibit 7: Operational Noise Source Locations
980
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 City of Banning
Table 12 also shows that the Project’s operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 37.4 to 46.5 dBA Leq.

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

Table 13: Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
2 Noise Standard (dBA Leq) Exceeds Standard?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime3 Daytime Nighttime
R1 47.5 46.5 60 68.3 No No
R2 38.4 37.4 60 60.4 No No
R3 44.1 42.9 60 57.0 No No
R4 45.8 44.5 60 64.5 No No
R5 45.9 44.7 60 63.1 No No
Source: Table 7-4, Urban Crossroads, February 2022 Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 See Exhibit 6 for Sensitive Receiver Locations
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown in Table 12 3 Exterior noise level standards adjusted to reflect the ambient noise levels per the City Municipal Code, Chapter 8.44.050 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? 981
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 73
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. The noise assessment uses the significance criteria shown in Table 14, Noise Impact Significance Criteria, to provide an additional assessment of Project noise impacts.

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

Table 15: Operational Noise Level Increase
Noise Characteristics Receiver Location1
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Daytime Hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Total Operational Noise Level2 47.5 38.4 44.1 45.8 45.9 Reference Ambient Noise Levels3 61.3 60.1 54.4 66.2 59.4 Combined Project and Ambient4 61.4 60.1 54.8 66.2 59.6
Project Increase5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2
Increase Criteria6 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.5 5.0
Increase Criteria Exceeded?6 No No No No No
Nighttime Hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Total Operational Noise Level2 46.5 37.4 42.9 44.5 44.7 Reference Ambient Noise Levels3 58.8 60.0 57.8 59.7 56.2 Combined Project and Ambient4 59.0 60.0 57.9 59.8 56.5
Project Increase5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Increase Criteria6 5.0 1.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Increase Criteria Exceeded?6 No No No No No
Source: Tables 7-5 and 7-6, Urban Crossroads, February 2022 1 See Exhibit 6 for Sensitive Receiver Locations
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown in Table 12 982
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 City of Banning
3 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels
4 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities 5 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities 6 Significance Criteria as shown on Table 14
Offsite Traffic Noise Analysis. The Project’s noise assessment by Urban Crossroads (November 2021, updated February 2022) also includes an analysis of noise impacts from offsite Project-related traffic. This offsite analysis was based on traffic data from the Project’s traffic assessment (“TA”), also prepared by Urban Crossroads (January 2022, updated February 2022). The noise assessment includes an analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project for informational purposes and to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the TA.

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

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

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

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

76.0 74.4

72.8 70.0

76.0 74.7

73.3 70.1

0.0 0.3

0.5 0.1

1.5 1.5

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

West of Highland Springs Ave.

East of Sun Lakes Village Dr.

East of Country Club Dr.

72.1 72.1

71.6 73.0

72.1 71.6

0.9 0.0

0.0 1.5

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

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

In addition to the Existing plus Project scenario, the noise assessment examined offsite noise impacts from Project traffic in the horizon year 2040. Table 17 shows Year 2040 Traffic Noise Impacts with Project conditions, indicating that the Project's off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.6 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the City’s significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels. 983
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 75
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Table 17: Year 2040 Traffic Noise Impacts
Road/Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase Limit Exceeded?
Highland Springs Ave.

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

77.2 75.6

74.2 74.3

77.2 75.8

74.6 74.3

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.0

1.5 1.5

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

West of Highland Springs Ave.

East of Sun Lakes Village Dr.

East of Country Club Dr.

74.3 73.2

72.7 74.9

73.2 72.7

0.6 0.0

0.0 1.5

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

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

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

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

The PEIR also determined that vehicle and truck movements from ongoing Project operations would not generate significant levels of vibration, so impacts would be less than significant and not require mitigation.
984
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 City of Banning
Construction. Based on vibration levels typical for various construction equipment types, the proposed Project’s noise assessment estimated the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the vibration methodology recommended by the Federal Transit Authority. Table 18, Construction Vibration Impacts, 8-5 presents the Project’s related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 110 to 725 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.001 to 0.010 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will not exceed the building damage thresholds at any of the noise sensitive receiver locations.

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

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

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.004

0.008

0.010

0.000

0.004

0.008

0.009

0.000

0.003

0.006

0.007

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

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

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

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

The Project will implement PEIR Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. Pursuant to MM NOI-2, a noise assessment has been prepared for the Project, and it confirms that the Project will not have any significant noise or vibration impacts. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
985
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 77
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.14 – Population and Housing
Would the Project:

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

Conclusion. The new warehouse and retail uses to be developed by the Project may result in some amount of indirect or induced housing and/or population growth to the degree that the new Project attracts residents choosing to buy a house or rent an apartment and move into the City. However, the Project is not expected to result in the displacement of any existing City residents (population) or housing by its development. Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 986
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 City of Banning

4.15 – Public Services
Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

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

The Project site is served by Fire Station #20 located approximately 0.6 roadway miles west of the site at 1550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA. Development of the Project would impact fire protection services by placing an additional demand on existing Riverside County Fire Department resources should its resources not be augmented. To offset the increased demand for fire protection services, the Project would be conditioned by the City to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply 987
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 79
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing for fire protection facilities. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional fire protection facilities.

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

Conclusion. The Project would increase the need for fire and police services, but not to the extent that new facilities would be required. As the Project does not includes residential uses, no significant impact to schools or parks is expected, and the Project applicant would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees. The potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 988
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
80 City of Banning

4.16 – Recreation
Would the Project:

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

Conclusion. The proposed project does not include residential uses, and any increase in park or recreational facility usage associated with construction of the Project would be considered minimal as the Project would not increase the population that would use park facilities. Furthermore, the Project applicant would need to pay applicable parks related development impact fees. The potential recreation impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or 989
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 81
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.17 – Transportation
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the
circulation system
including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Would the project
conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
No Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Circulation Plan Consistency. Although the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) methodology is now applied in evaluating potential transportation impacts of a project, the City’s General Plan identifies standards for maintaining an adequate level of service (LOS) for City streets and intersections. To be consistent with the 2020 State CEQA Guidelines, a LOS analysis is not required for purposes of this CEQA analysis. However, a trip generation and a VMT assessment of the Project were prepared to determine if the Project would generate more traffic than was estimated for the SLVNSP or evaluated in its PEIR (UC 2021b-c)(see Appendices B and C).
990
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
82 City of Banning
Trip Generation. A traffic study was prepared for the PEIR, which evaluated the development of 877,298 square feet of industrial park use and 37,189 square feet of commercial retail use within the area bounded by the currently proposed Project. There were also medical office uses evaluated in the PEIR, but this portion of the SLVNSP is east and outside of the proposed Project boundary. Table 19 (Project Trip Generation vs. PEIR Estimate) indicates the portion of the SLVNSP within the Project boundaries would generate 3,844 actual-vehicle trips, or 4,530 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, under the assumptions of the PEIR, which takes into account truck lengths when estimating vehicle trips.

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

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

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

The Project applicant is proposing to construct two (2) access driveways on Sun Lakes Boulevard, which will be constructed to meet City standards. The driveways do not have the potential to preclude the availability of bus service to the Project site when it is completed. The existing transit routes could potentially serve the Project since transit service is reviewed and updated by Beaumont Transit and 991
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 83
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Pass Transit periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. Therefore, any Project impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the purposes of this analysis, the initial VMT screening process where applicable has been conducted using the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool), which uses screening criteria consistent with the screening thresholds recommended in the City’s Guidelines. 992
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
84 City of Banning
(1) TPA Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the OPR Technical Advisory and City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”i or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”ii) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

Based on the Screening Tool results, the Project site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, the TPA screening threshold is not met. (2) Low VMT Area Screening
The City Guidelines state that, “proposed residential, office, industrial, or mixed-use projects, which are located within the low VMT zones identified after applying appropriate VMT analysis thresholds (provided later in this chapter) in the screening tool, and which do not require a GPA or COZ would be deemed to have less than significant impact.” The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within the WRCOG region. The Project’s physical location based on parcel number was selected within the Screening Tool to determine the relevant TAZ’s VMT as compared to the jurisdictional average (see Attachment B). The Project boundary is located in TAZ 4344 and would appear to be within a low VMT generating TAZ based on daily home-based work (HBW) VMT per worker. Based on a review of the land use information contained within TAZ 4344 for the RIVTAM base year (2012) model, the zone includes very low levels of employment and low amounts of population and household data. The proposed Project would significantly increase the quantity and type of employment uses in the zone and would therefore not be entirely consistent with the underlying land use assumptions. Therefore, the Low VMT Area screening threshold is not met. (3) Local Serving Retail Screening
The City Guidelines provide that local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition to local serving retail, other types of local serving uses such as day care centers, non-destination hotels, affordable housing, places of worship, municipal services, and other local serving uses may also be i Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). ii Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 993
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 85
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
presumed to have a less than significant impact as they tend to shorten vehicle trips. The retail uses within the proposed Project do not exceed the 50,000 square feet screening threshold, and the retail uses are designed to be local-serving. The Project Type screening threshold is met for the Project’s retail component only.
(4) Project Trip Screening
The City’s Guidelines identifies that projects generating fewer than 500 daily vehicle trips (for projects requiring a GPA and fewer than 1,000 daily vehicle trips (for projects not requiring a GPA) are anticipated to meet the City’s Project Trip Screening threshold and result in a less than significant impact. Based on the Project’s forecasted trip generation (see UC 2021b), the Project would generate more than 1,000 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the Project Trip screening threshold is not met.

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

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

Table 210
Project Employment Estimate
Land Use
Building
Area (SF)
Building Area
Per Employee (SF)
Estimated
Employees1
Industrial 619,959 1,030 602
Source: Table 1, UC 2021c
1 Riverside County General Plan Employment Factors
Consistent with recommendations contained in the City’s Guidelines, calculation of VMT for “other land uses” that are not residential or retail land use types are evaluated using VMT per employee. For land uses where VMT per capita or VMT per employee are suitable metrics, the City Guidelines suggest the use of the Production-Attraction (PA) trip matrices be utilized. Using these matrices, Project generated VMT was calculated consistent with the PA matrices methodology identified in Section 5.4, Detail VMT Forecasting Methodology, of the City Guidelines. VMT is then normalized by dividing by the number of Project employees. As shown in Table 21 (Project VMT Per Employee), the Project’s VMT per employee is 14.26 miles per worker.
994
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
86 City of Banning
Table 11
Project VMT Per Employee
VMT Characteristic Baseline
Employment 602
VMT 8,582
HBW VMT/Workers1 14.26
Source: Table 2, UC 2021c
1 HBW VMT/Workers is a measure of all auto trips between home and work and does not include heavy duty truck trips or freight, which is consistent with OPR direction and Riverside County VMT calculation guidelines.

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures
VMT-1 Pedestrian Network Improvements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, site plans for future development shall provide a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site internally and to Sun Lakes Boulevard.
995
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 87
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
The Project will have less than significant impacts regarding VMT, and although mitigation is therefore not required, the Project will include implementation of PEIR Mitigation Measure VMT-1. (c) Circulation Design Hazards. The PEIR indicates this section of Sun Lakes Boulevard is fully improved with a curvilinear alignment but contains no geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) that are considered hazardous. Final Project site plans will be subject to City review and approval, which will ensure that driveway intersections and internal circulation are safe, with adequate sight distance, driveway widths and stop signs for entering and exiting the site. The Project area is suburban in nature with no agricultural uses, so there is little potential for conflict with other uses.

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

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

Conclusion. The PEIR concluded that VMT impacts of the SLVNSP/ Amendment No. 5 were significant even with mitigation. The PEIR determined the other transportation-related impacts were less than significant. A VMT assessment of the currently proposed Project shows that the Project would have less than significant impacts based on its current design. For consistency, the Project will also implement PEIR Mitigation Measure VMT-1. The Project’s TA also shows that the Project will generate fewer trips than what was disclosed by the PEIR for the SLVNSP. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
996
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
88 City of Banning

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

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

No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) Eligible for Listing. As described in the PEIR, the Project area has low sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources, and it is unlikely that intact, subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits would be uncovered during Project construction. Sensitivity for encountering historic-age archaeological resources is considered low-to-moderate. However, the Project area lies within Stewart Ranch, and the land within the Project area was utilized for grazing, agricultural, and water control/conveyance purposes. This suggests that any subsurface historic artifacts and/or deposits that may be present would most likely reflect those activities (e.g., horse shoes, tacks, barbed wire, sparse occurrences of 997
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 89
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
tin cans and glass bottles, other water conveyance/control features, etc.) and would most likely not be considered historically significant. Thus, there is no impact, and no mitigation measures are required. (b) Significant Tribal Resources. As described in the PEIR, the City consulted with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians under SB 18 and AB 52, and it was determined that tribal cultural resources may be encountered during grading activities. Therefore, the PEIR recommended Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-6, which will be implemented by the Project. No additional consultation is required for this consistency analysis.

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

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

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

TCR-4 Specific Conditions. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Tribal cultural, and/or archaeological resources within the project area. This includes cultural materials both on the surface and buried. Should human remains be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground-disturbing activity (i.e. grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases, excavation of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop (within 100-foot buffer of the discovery), the area shall be protected, project personnel/observers restricted, and the County Coroner to be contacted pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. In the event human remains are found and identified as Native American, the landowner shall also notify the City Planning Department so that the City can ensure PRC § 5097.98 is followed. No photographs are to be taken except by the Coroner.
a) In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources or other cultural resources are discovered during project development and construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop (within 60-foot buffer of the discovery) and the area protected by fencing 998
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
90 City of Banning
and guarding until a qualified archaeologist (i.e. meeting Secretary of the Interior standards) assesses the discovery. Overall project work may continue during this period of assessment. b) If archaeological assessment indicates that significant Native American cultural resources or other cultural resources are present, a Treatment Plan must be prepared in consultation with the Tribe. The developer will notify the Lead Agency and contract with qualified Cultural Resources Management (CRM) firm to develop the Treatment Plan. c) If requested by the Tribe, the developer or the project archaeologist shall, in good faith, immediately initiate consultation with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding further actions to be taken including, but not limited to, avoidance, preservation in place, removal, and disposition.

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

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

Conclusion: With implementation of PEIR Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-6, the potential impacts to tribal cultural resources will be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
999
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 91
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the Project:

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or
construction of new or
expanded water,
wastewater treatment
or storm water
drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the
construction or
relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable
future development
during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider which serves
or may serve the
Project that it has
adequate capacity to
serve the Project’s
Projected demand in
addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
1000
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
92 City of Banning
Would the Project:

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

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

The proposed Project represents a large portion but not all of the approved SLVNSP land uses (i.e., it does not include 52,065 square feet of medical offices within the Office & Professional District). The proposed Project is also approximately 30 percent less intense (i.e., less warehouse and commercial development) than was evaluated in the PEIR. Since the WSA prepared for the SLVNSP addressed development in excess of the proposed Project, it can be concluded the City can provide sufficient water over the long-term to serve the proposed Project. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
1001
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 93
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
(c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The PEIR indicated that wastewater flows collected within the City’s service area are currently treated at one facility, the Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant has capacity to treat up to 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and treated an average of 2.07 MGD in 2016. According to the City, the entire SLVNSP was estimated to generate approximately 53,580 gpd (0.5 MGD) which represented 1.78% of the treatment plant’s capacity in 2025 and 1.16% in 2040 (PEIR Table 12). The PEIR concluded this represented a less than significant impact, and no mitigation was required.

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

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

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

Conclusion. The PEIR concluded that utility and service demands of the entire SLVNSP were less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Since the proposed Project is a large portion but not all of the development planned under the SLVNSP, the proposed Project would also have less than significant impacts related to utilities and services. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
1002
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
94 City of Banning

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

Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
No No Impact No No No
b) Due to slope,
prevailing winds, and
other factors,
exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby
expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of
wildfire?
No No Impact No No No
c) Require the installation
or maintenance of
associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water
sources, power lines or
other utilities), that may
exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the
environment?
No No Impact No No No
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including
downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or
drainage changes?
No No Impact No No No
1003
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 95
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Proposed Project in relation to PEIR
(a) through (d). As described in the PEIR Initial Study, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and no impact would occur. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the SLVNSP and what was evaluated in the PEIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.

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

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Effect Not
Examined
in Program
EIR?
Conclusion
in Program
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Does the Project have
the potential to
degrade the quality of
the environment,
substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife
population to drop
below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or
animal community,
reduce the number or
restrict the range of a
rare or endangered
plant or animal or
eliminate important
examples of the major
periods of California
history or prehistory?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
b) Does the Project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
No Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No
c) Does the Project have
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse
effects on human
beings, either directly
or indirectly?
No Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
1004
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
96 City of Banning
(a) Significant Biological or Cultural Impacts. The PEIR identified no endangered or threatened species on or supported by the Project site. As stated in Section 4.4, development of the proposed Project would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or restrict the movement/distribution of a rare or endangered species. Development of the proposed Project would result in the conversion of approximately 37.05 acres of vacant, disturbed land to industrial warehouse and retail commercial uses. The proposed Project would not affect any threatened or endangered species or habitat. Impacts to migratory birds, the burrowing owl, and nesting bird species would be mitigated to a less than significant level with adherence to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 from the PEIR, which require burrowing owl and nesting surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities, as well as protection for native trees. Potential impacts to onsite biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to the identified mitigation measures.

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

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

As documented in the PEIR, development of the Project site will not result in any significant direct or cumulative impacts related to hydrology (in terms of flooding), hazards, or hazardous materials. In addition, the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project shows that there would be no significant cancer or non-cancer health risks from the proposed warehouse or commercial uses on nearby sensitive receptors, so mitigation is not required.
1005
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 97
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
5 Applicable Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project: City of Banning – Banning Point Project Date: February 10, 2022 * denotes mitigation measure is from the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan EIR Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Air Quality AQ-1* Use Low VOC Paint. To reduce VOC emissions associated with architectural coating, the project designer and contractor shall reduce the use of paints and solvents by utilizing pre-coated materials (e.g. bathroom stall dividers, metal awnings), materials that do not require painting, and require coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113 to be utilized. The construction contractor shall be required to utilize “Super Compliant” VOC paints, which are defined in SCAQMD’s Rule 1113. Construction specifications shall be included in building specifications that assure these requirements are implemented. The specifications for each implementing development project shall be reviewed by the City of Banning’s Building and Safety Division for compliance with this mitigation measure prior to issuance of a building permit.

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

Prior to issuance of
a grading permit
Planning
Division
Submit air quality study
for review and approval
Air Quality AQ-3* Electrical Hookups for Loading Docks. Trucks accessing the Project site may have auxiliary power units (APU) and/or transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Therefore, electrical hookups shall be Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
City
Inspectors
Verify installation of
electrical hookups
1006
98 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
installed at all loading docks, and to reduce/replace APU use while trucks are parked along the docks, to allow trucks with APU and/or TRUs with electric standby capabilities to plug in when TRUs are in use to reduce diesel fuel consumption and resulting NOx emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

The measures shall include the following:

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

This report has been
prepared and is included
with this Addendum for
review and approval by
the City
1007
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 99
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
1) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant and/or building operators shall submit construction plans and a construction vehicle management plan to the City of Banning denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. The construction vehicle management plan shall include such things as: idling time requirements; requiring hour meters on equipment; and documenting the serial number, horsepower, age, and fuel of all onsite equipment.

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

Biological
Resources
BIO-1* Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. Within 30 calendar days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall implement focused preconstruction surveys. Surveys shall be conducted by a Within 30 days prior
to the start of grading
Planning
Division
Developer shall retain
qualified biologist and
1008
100 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
CDVW-approved biologist prior to the initiation of ground disturbance (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading). In conformance with Burrowing Owl Survey instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (2006) and California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s 1993 protocols (which are recommended by the CDFW), the surveys will consist of a minimum of three site visits. A brief biological technical report will be prepared and submitted to the City that describes the results of the preconstruction survey. The report shall be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If the preconstruction survey does not identify burrowing owls in the impact area, a grading permit may be issued without restriction. If it is determined that burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent shall immediately inform RCA, USFWS, and CDFW and will be required to prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan for approval by RCA, USFWS, and CDFW prior to initiation of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are determined to be present in areas proposed for ground disturbance, the following avoidance measures will be implemented:
a. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Owls on-site after March 1 will be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. This nest protection buffer will be maintained until August 31 or based on monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

Unless otherwise authorized by CDFW and/or the RCA, a 250‐foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31 or based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. For burrowing owls present during the If owls found onsite
prior to grading
Planning
Division
submit study to City for
review and approval
Biologist to prepare a
Burrowing Owl
Protection and
Relocation Plan and
submit to resource
agencies for review and
approval
1009
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 101
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
nonbreeding season (generally September 1 to January 31), a 150‐ foot buffer zone will be maintained around the occupied burrow(s). b. If there is any possibility that owls will be injured or killed as a result of construction activities, the birds may be passively relocated during the nonbreeding season in coordination with the City, RCA, and CDFW. Relocation of owls will be performed by a qualified biologist using one‐way doors, which should be installed in all burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. Immediately prior to the initiation of grading, these one‐way doors will be removed and the burrows backfilled. To avoid the potential for owls evicted from a burrow to occupy other burrows in the impact area, one‐ way doors will be placed in all potentially suitable burrows in the impact area when eviction occurs.
c. Preparation of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan may be required if active and/or passive relocation is necessary. The relocation plan will outline the basic process and provides options for avoidance and mitigation. The relocation plan will be approved by the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW prior to implementation.

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

The size and location of all buffer zones as determined by a qualified biologist, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Provide setbacks
if active nests are
found per BIO-1
Planning
Division
Monitoring by qualified
biologist if needed
during grading with final
report upon completion
1010
102 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Department. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist and Planning Department verify that the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

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

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

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

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

The monitor shall be equipped to rapidly remove any large fossil specimens encountered during excavation. During monitoring, samples shall be collected and processed to recover microvertebrate fossils. Processing shall include wet screen washing and microscopic Prior to issuance
of a grading permit
Planning
Division
Proof qualified
paelontologist has been
retained and PRIMP has
been prepared,
approved, and
implemented
1011
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 103
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
examination of the residual materials to identify small vertebrate remains.
b) Upon encountering a large deposit of bone, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted in accordance with modern
paleontological techniques.
c) All fossils collected during the Project shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

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

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

1. The project shall devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy to reduce water use during project operation. The strategy will include the following:
• Install drought-tolerant plants for landscaping.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems, such as weatherbased and soil-moisture- based irrigation controllers and sensors, for landscaping according to the California
Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Planning
Division
Verification letter
accepted demonstrating
compliance
1012
104 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Department of Water Resources Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
• Ensure that all landscape and irrigation measures follow the City of Banning’s Landscaping and Water Conservation
requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to issuance of
a building permit
Community
Development
Department
Plans demonstrate
specified materials and
equipment provided
Noise NOI-1* Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that ongoing during grading and Prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit
Planning
Division
Plans demonstrate
compliance with
restrictions
1013
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 105
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
1) The project applicant shall limit construction activities to the daytime hours between 7 AM to 6 PM, as prescribed in Section

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

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

Noise NOI-2* Final Acoustical Report. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for any project, the property owner/developer shall submit a Prior to issuance of the
first building permit
Planning
Division
Submit final acoustical
report
1014
106 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director to address potential noise impacts to nearby residences. The report shall demonstrate that the project incorporates sufficient noiseattenuation features if needed so that the City’s exterior and interior standards in Municipal Code Sections 8.44.070 and 8.44.090(E) and

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to issuance of
grading permits or any
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Division
Provide staff training
and monitor grading
1015
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 107
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
TCR-2* Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the qualified archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site, in coordination with Tribe.

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

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

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

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

During grading or other
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Division
Contact/coordinate with
County Coroner and
tribal
groups as appropriate
1016
108 City of Banning
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
A) In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources or other cultural resources are discovered during project development and construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop (within 60-foot buffer of the discovery) and the area protected by fencing and guarding until a qualified archaeologist (i.e. meeting Secretary of the Interior standards) assesses the discovery. Overall project work may continue during this period of assessment.

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

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

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

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

B) The Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD) may wish to rebury the human remains and/or associated funerary objects, as close to the During grading or other
ground-disturbing
activities
Planning
Department
Halt work and
development/
implement a treatment
plan
1017
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 109
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures* Implementation Timing
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
place of their discovery, in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances and reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial will not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains will be determined by the landowner, City Planning Department, in consultation with the Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD).

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

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

Within 60 days of
completion of grading if
AMTP documents
produced
Planning
Department
Qualified archaeologist
provides AMTP
documents to City
* denotes mitigation measure is from the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan EIR 1018
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 110
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
6 References

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

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
None

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

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

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

Romo Planning Group (RPG), 2020a. Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, Amendment 5, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2020029074) and Appendices (including Appendix A – Initial Study and Notice of Preparation). September 9, 2020.
1019
References
Banning Point/Sun Lake Village North Specific Plan 111
EIR Addendum/Consistency Checklist
Romo Planning Group (RPG), 2020b. Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, Amendment 5. November 4, 2020.

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

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

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

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (UC). 2022. Banning Point Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. November 29, 2021, updated February 7, 2022 (Appendix D).
1020
References
112 City of Banning
Appendix A
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,
& Health Risk Assessment Memorandum
1021
13841-04 AQ, GHG, & HRA Memo
February 10, 2022
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
SUBJECT: BANNING POINT AIR QUALITY,GREENHOUSE GAS, & HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

MEMORANDUM
Dear Mr. Adam Rush:

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

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

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

The Project is proposed to consist of 464,969 square feet of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use (75% of the industrial use), 154,990 square feet of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (25% of the industrial use), 16,200 square feet of fast-food restaurant without drive-through window use, 1,600 square feet of coffee-donut shop with drive-through window use, and 16,200 square feet of shopping center use as shown on Exhibit B. Consistent with the Certified EIR, the industrial uses are proposed on the northern end of the site with the commercial retail uses fronting Sun Lakes Boulevard to the south. 1022
Mr. Adam Rush
City of Banning
February 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

Banning City CouncilSeptember 10, 2024

Banning City Council
September 10, 2024