Banning City Council
July 8, 2025

RESOLUTION 2025-107

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (“EIR”), ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (“MMRP”) FOR THE BANNING COMMERCE CENTER PROJECT INVOLVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, CASE DR 21-7017, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,320,284-SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 131.28-ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE I-10 FREEWAY/E. RAMSEY STREET, EAST OF N. HATHAWAY STREET AND BISECTED BY WILSON STREET, WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE.

WHEREAS, Sansone Group submitted applications for a Design Review (Case DR 2021-7017), Tentative Parcel Map (Case TPM 38756), and Development Agreement with the City of Banning, for the development of industrial uses within a proposed 1,320,204-square foot building on a 131.28-acre project site located north of I-10 Freeway/East Ramsey Street, East of N. Hathaway Street, and bisected by Wilson Street on assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) 532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080- 010, 532-090-026, 532-090-028, 532-090-030, 532-110-015 (collectively, the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.04.060.A. of the Banning Zoning Ordinance (BZO), the City Council has the authority to review and approve or conditionally approve the subject applications, including determinations on any associated environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(f)(2) and 15070, the proposal constitutes a project as defined by CEQA and Community Development Department staff has determined that the Project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based upon the complexity and magnitude of the proposed Project, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the Project.

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was subsequently completed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies and organizations that may provide comment on the Project’s potential impact(s) on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the project, SCH No. 2022090102. The 30-day public comment period extended from September 2 to October 3, 2022. An electronic copy of the NOP was made available on the City’s website. Comments received during the public review of the NOP were utilized to assist in identifying potential environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the Public Scoping meeting was held in person at the City of Banning Council Chambers and virtually via Zoom on September 20, 2022. Notice of the Public Scoping Meeting was published in the Banning Record Gazette on September 2, 2022 853
Resolution 2025-107

providing the appropriate instructions for public participation in the Scoping Meeting. The Public Scoping Meeting included a presentation providing a summary of the Project, required actions, and the environmental review process. No public comments were received during the Scoping Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Banning Commerce Center development project would result in construction and operational activities upon a currently undeveloped, vacant site. Such activities could potentially uncover Native American historical or archaeological resources unknown prior to ground disturbing activities; therefore, Native American consultation pursuant to both SB 18 and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was conducted. On September 14, 2022 the City reached out to Native American contacts to formally invite participation in tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 required for the Project. The City received responses from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) requesting formal consultation with the City regarding the Development Project, and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) with YSMN stating that the development project is outside of their ancestral territory; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was provided to, responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the organizations, and persons who have previously requested notification. The NOA was distributed via priority mail with confirmed receipt. The NOA identified the State mandated 45-day public review period extending from June 17, 2024 to August 2, 2024 and included a weblink to the City’s public noticing page providing further access to the Draft EIR, project material, and related technical appendices. Emails advising of the availability of the Draft EIR were sent by the City on June 17, 2024 to those parties requesting electronic notification. These emails provided the same weblink leading to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City received 14 letters from Resource Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties. The City prepared a response to each comment letter received and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the disclosure requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(g)(5), the Project site is not listed as a hazardous property as designated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on February 21, 2025, the City provided public notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Project. The public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary on February 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on March 5, 2025, the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which 854
Resolution 2025-107

interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the Planning Commission considered the entirety of the Project and voted 3-2 to recommend that the City Council approve the subject applications and certify the EIR; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on June 27, 2025, the City provided public notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Project. Said public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary on June 26, 2025; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on July 8, 2025, the City Council held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the City Council considered the entirety of the Project, including the EIR, CEQA Findings, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. .

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. MSHCP. The Project is found to be consistent with the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP). The Project site is not located in a criteria cell, but incorporates mitigation measures consistent with requirements of the MSHCP to mitigate impacts on Burrowing Owls, sensitive bird species, and riverine resources through pre-construction surveys, implementation procedures during grading, on-site mitigation, and other measures set forth in the MMRP, Exhibit 3.

SECTION 3. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. To the extent that the significant effects of the Project are not avoided or substantially lessened to below a level of significance, the City of Banning, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in view of twelve overriding considerations identified in Exhibit 2. Although significant impacts will remain, the City will mitigate any significant adverse impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and transportation (vehicle miles traveled) to the maximum extent practicable. In its decision to approve the Project, the City has considered the Project benefits to outweigh the environmental impacts.

SECTION 4. CEQA DETERMINATION. The City Council, based on its independent judgement and analysis, has reviewed and considered the proposed Project and determined, based on the whole record before it, including the EIR, that the proposed 855
Resolution 2025-107

Project will have a significant impact on environment, and hereby makes the CEQA Findings, including the approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit 2; hereby certifies the EIR as set forth in Exhibit 1; and hereby adopts the MMRP as set forth in Exhibit 3, in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA for the Project.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of July, 2025.

Sheri Flynn, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

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

John Pinkney, Interim City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney,
LLP
856
Resolution 2025-107

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2025-107, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of July, 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
857
Resolution 2025-107
EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Impact Report
(This document is on file with the City Clerk and currently available online here:
https://engagebanning.civilspace.io/en/projects/banning-commerce-center )
858
Resolution 2025-107
EXHIBIT 2
Statement of Overriding Considerations
859
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
1 Banning Commerce Center
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022090102

1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS

1.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment. The Statement of Facts and Findings is the first set of findings where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts, presents facts supporting those conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more findings supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency’s findings.

The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA and Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) provides that:

No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.

There are three possible finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to Section 1509(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings. Where a project will cause unavoidable significant impacts, the Lead Agency may still approve a project where its benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. Further, as provided in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning by which benefits are balanced against effects and approves the project.

Based upon its review of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), the Lead Agency finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, represents 860
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
2 the independent judgment of City of Banning (“City”), and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project.

The Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
• Banning Commerce Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090102 (June 2024);
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• Response to Comments; and
• Corrections and Changes from the Draft EIR to the Final EIR.

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval
The Banning Commerce Center Project (“Project”) is generally located within the eastern portion of the City of Banning, within the County of Riverside. Regional access to the Project site is available from Interstate 10 (I-10) via Hargrave Street and Ramsey Street. Local access is provided by Hathaway Street, located east of the Project site; Wilson Street would be extended eastward as part of the Project and would bisect the northerly portion of the Project site. The Project site comprises eight Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080-010, 532-090-026, 532-090-028, 532-090-030, and 532-110-015.

The Project proposes the development of approximately 1,320,284 square feet of warehouse space (including office space) within one concrete tilt-up building. The Project also proposes associated facilities and improvements of the Project site including loading dock doors, on-site landscaping, and related onsite and off-site improvements.

The Project includes various discretionary approvals including applications for a Tentative Parcel Map (No. 38576), Design Review (21-7017), Development Agreement, and a Major Land Use Action Review.

2.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Project is to implement the vision laid out in the Project objectives, by providing development standards and design guidelines to direct future development within the Project area. In order to promote a high-quality development, as well as the functional integrity, economic viability, environmental sensitivity, and positive aesthetic impact of the Project, specific planning and development objectives for the Project were identified:

Objective 1: Develop an industrial project that conforms to the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

Objective 2: Provide a new development that will generate a positive fiscal balance for the City moving forward.
861
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
3 Objective 3: Design and build a Class-A institutional quality industrial project that will attract high end tenants and increase the City’s tax base.

Objective 4: Generate employment opportunities within the City while improving the local balance of housing to job ratio.

Objective 5: Facilitate the movement of goods and services for the benefit of local and regional economic growth.

Objective 6: Develop a warehouse project adjacent to transportation corridors, truck routes, local amenities, and the nearby Interstate 10 Freeway for employee convenience and efficiencies of transporting goods.

Objective 7: Develop a warehouse project which efficiently uses the property, while conforming with all City regulatory policies.

Objective 8: Improve public safety and traffic flow in eastern Banning with roadway and infrastructure improvements.

Objective 9: Provide enhanced landscaping along City designated corridors with the construction of wide streets and landscaped setbacks.

Objective 10: Provide the required infrastructure for Project operation for future growth and prosperity of the surrounding benefit area that will serve the immediate and long term needs of the community.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has conducted an extensive review of this Project which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review of the Project:
• Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) and filed a copy with the California Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse to inform the general public, trustee and responsible agencies, and other interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the Project. The NOP was distributed on August 29, 2022, with a 30-day public review period ending on September 28, 2022. • The NOP was distributed for a 30-day public review period, which began on August 29, 2022. The NOP was recirculated on September 2, 2022. In addition, the City held a publicly-noticed EIR scoping meeting in person and remotely via Zoom on September 20, 2022. A total of eight comment letters were received in response to the NOP. The comment letters received during the NOP comment period along with the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. • The scope of the Draft EIR was determined through the NOP and scoping meeting process, as well as through the preparation of an Initial Study. Through these processes, the environmental resource areas included in the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G that were found to not be significant were Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. Public Services was analyzed within the 862
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
4 Draft EIR upon request by the Lead Agency. All remaining environmental resources areas included in the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G were analyzed in the Draft EIR. • The City circulated the Draft EIR for the Project from June 14, 2024 to August 19, 2024. The City received a total of 14 comment letters from responsible agencies and other interested parties.

The City prepared responses to all written comments received during the public review period.

The comments and responses are contained in Section 2.0 of the Final EIR. • In accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City has provided a written proposed response to each commenting public agency no less than 10 days prior to the proposed certification date of the Final EIR.

4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING
The Project Applicant retained the independent consulting firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn”) to prepare the EIR for the Project. Kimley-Horn has prepared the EIR under the supervision, direction and review of the City. The City is the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIR, as defined by California Public Resource Code Section 21067, as amended. The City of Banning City Council (“Council”) has received and reviewed the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding.

4.1 Finding
The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant to review the EIR and directing the consultant in preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City.

The Council has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the Project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the Project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence the Council finds that with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process (except those described in the following paragraph), the impact is: (1) less than significant and would not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to less than a significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigatable but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures.

The EIR also identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the Project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Prior to approving this project, the Council also adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section 6.0), that certain identified economic, social, or other benefits of the Project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 863
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
5 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS

5.1 Effects Determined to be No Impact/Less Than Significant Impact in the EIR The Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant or would result in no impact and therefore do not require the implementation of mitigation measures.

AESTHETICS
Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Basis for Conclusion: Scenic views from the City and Project site include the San Bernardino Mountains and San Gorgonio Peak located to the north, as well as the San Jacinto Mountains located to the south.

These views provide an aesthetically pleasing natural backdrop for the City’s residents. Buildout of the Project has the potential to obstruct views of the San Bernardino Mountains to motorists on I-10; however, considering that the Project would be within foreground views from 1-10, in addition to the dominating visual panoramic views of the San Bernardino Mountains, the disruption would be minimal and in short duration. As shown in the visual simulations contained in Draft EIR Figures 4.1-1a-d, Project buildings would not significantly impede the visibility of scenic vistas from street level or at various distances around the Project. Furthermore, the closest residences would be at a higher elevation than the top of the Project building and would be at a large distance away from the Project site, therefore making it impossible for the Project to obstruct views of nearby scenic resources. Through adherence to the City’s Municipal code, distance between the Project and sensitive viewers, and the dominating panoramic scale of nearby mountain ranges, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-7).

Impact 4.1-2: Would the Project substantially damage scene resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Basis for Conclusion: There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City. Moreover, the Project site is not located close to a State-designated or eligible scenic highway, and thus the provisions of the California Scenic Highway Program do not apply. The nearest designated state scenic highway is a portion of State Route 243 (SR-243), approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the Project site.

Although the Project’s development would alter the landscape and natural vistas, construction and operation of the Project site would notsubstantially damage or obstruct a scenic resource (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic highway. As such, impacts that would occur are less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-12).

Impact 4.1-3: Would the Project, in non-urbanized areas, 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?
864
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
6 Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is located in a nonurbanized area. Construction activities would result in a temporary change to the visual characteristics of the Project site as viewed from the surrounding uses from temporary grading, equipment staging, and associated building activities.

Construction would be visible to distant residents on Hathaway Street and motorists on I-10. Residents to the west of the Project site would experience changes in the visual character during the Project site preparation, utility construction, and paving portions of construction while Wilson Street and parking lots on the western portion of the Project site are constructed. These disturbances would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of construction.

Regarding operations, the Project would be designed and constructed compliant with the City General Plan land use designations and zoning ordinances for Business Park, which include building height and setback requirements. Additionally, the Project would be characteristic of the adjacent industrial uses, public services, and airport uses. While the Project would alter the existing visual character of the Project site, it would be minimized by compliance with the General Plan, General Plan Final EIR, zoning ordinances, and municipal development standards. As such, Project implementation would have a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13).

Impact 4.1-4: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime view in the area?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is primarily undeveloped and surrounded by mostly vacant land.

Existing sources of light and glare exist primarily from activity associated with I-10 to the immediate south of the Project site, such as vehicle headlights. Construction of the Project would be limited to the daytime hours of construction permitted (as stated in the Banning Code of Ordinances Standards (Section 8.44.090 and 18.09.200.) (unless otherwise approved by the City of Banning). During operations, the Project would use interior lighting and exterior security and parking lot lighting. All lighting on-site would be consistent with the general standards of the development standards for lighting, Section 17.24.100 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, and general design principles identified in Section 17.12.090. As such, both short-term and long-term impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13 through 4.1-14).

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact 7.2-1: Would the Project 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? Basis for Conclusion: Based on review of the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland maps, neither the Project site nor any adjacent land is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project site and adjacent land are designated as Grazing Land. As such, the Project would not involve converting any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-1).
865
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
7 Impact 7.2-2: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Basis for Conclusion: According to the City’s Land Use and Zoning Map, no portion of the Project site is zoned or designated for agricultural use. The Project site is not in use for agricultural activities, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, and there is no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 7-2).

Impact 7.2-3: Would the Project 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))?
Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site has no lands located within the vicinity that are zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production. Additionally, the Project would not result in the rezoning of any forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and therefore no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-2).

Impact 7.2-4: Would the Project Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Basis for Conclusion: There is no existing active farmland, forest lands, timberlands, or areas zoned for agriculture on the Project site or immediately surrounding areas. As such, development of the Project site would not involve changes to the existing environment which would result from conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-2 to 7-3).

AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.3-4: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Basis for Conclusion: During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. However, these odors would be not anticipated to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related and operational activities would have no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-30). 866
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-4: Would the Project 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? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is expected to provide for local wildlife foraging and breeding habitat. However, the Project site does not serve as a regional travel route, wildlife corridor, or wildlife crossing for large or medium-sized mammals between open space habitats located north and south of I10. Small mammals, reptiles and amphibians may occasionally use off-site culverts, but the culverts are considered significantly strained and provide low quality for wildlife movement and connectivity. Any proposed development within the Project site would be required to comply with all Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) urban/wildlands interface guidelines. Through implementation of associated guidelines and specific best management practices (BMPs), a less than significant impact would occur with respect to Project interference with wildlife movement and corridors. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-20).

Impact 4.3-5: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Basis for Conclusion: The City Municipal Code Section 17.32.060 discourages the removal of healthy, shade providing, and aesthetically valuable trees. A tree removal and replacement plan would be required for the removal and replacement of all trees over 50 years in age unless their removal is required to protect public health and safety. No trees are located within or adjacent to the Project site that meet the criteria for the City’s tree removal ordinance outlined in Section 17.32.060 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-21).

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.5-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 150645?
Basis for Conclusion: Construction of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Six undocumented historic-era sites were recorded within the Project area. CRM TECH evaluated each of the six resources and concluded that all six resources did not qualify as “historical resources” under CEQA.

Therefore, the Project would not significantly impact any historical resources pursuant CEQA Guidelines, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-10 to 4.4-11).

ENERGY
Impact 4.5-1: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project is anticipated to be constructed in one phase and over a duration of approximately 18 months. The energy associated with construction includes electricity use associated with water utilized for dust control, diesel fuel from on-road hauling trips, vendor trips, and off-road 867
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
9 construction diesel equipment, as well as gasoline fuel from on-road worker commute trips. Project construction use of electricity was estimated to represent less than one percent of the current electricity use in Riverside County. Additionally, construction diesel fuel and gasoline fuel would represent a negligible amount of the County’s fuel. As such, the Project would not substantially affect existing energy fuel supplies or resources, nor would the Project demand new capacity or additional sources of construct fuel. Project-related construction energy use would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-11 through

4.5-13).

The energy consumption associated with Project operations would occur from building energy (electricity and natural gas) use, water use, and transportation-related fuel use. The estimated energy demand for electricity, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline would each represent less than one percent of the Countywide use for each resource. Additionally, the Project would install solar photo-voltaic (PV) panels that would help to offset its electricity demand. As such, Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy of fuel supplies or resources. The Project would also comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Project related operation energy use would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14 through 4.5-15).

Overall, construction and operations energy demand for the Project represent a negligible amount compared to the Countywide demand. Additionally, the Project would comply with the California Building Code, which have incorporated California Energy Efficiency Standards for residential and non-residential buildings. As such, the Project would not be wasteful or inefficient, and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-15).

Impact 4.6-2: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Basis for Conclusion: The energy conservation policies and plans relevant to the Project include the California Title 24 energy standards and the CALGreen Building Code. The Project would be required to comply with these existing energy standards and any updates to these standards that come into existence prior to construction. Compliance with state and local energy efficiency standards would ensure that the Project meets all applicable energy conservation policies and regulations. As such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) (RTP/SCS), integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG reduction targets set by CARB. The document establishes greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks, as well as an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Senate Bill (SB) 375. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Project impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-15).
868
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
10 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts 4.6-1 to 4.6-3: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: (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?; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?; and/or (iv) Landslides? Basis for Conclusion: Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault and Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. According to the Geotechnical Study prepared for this Project, the Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone nor was any evidence of faulting identified during field investigation. The nearest fault to the Project site is the San Gorgonio Pass Fault. It was determined that the possibility of significant fault rupture on the Project site would be low. Therefore, the impacts associated with the surface rupture of a known fault would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

In addition, each future building and Project component constructed would be designed and constructed in conformance with all applicable standards governing such development and would use the latest building standards, as adopted by the Building Standards Commission, to minimize impacts from seismic activity. The Project would not cause or exacerbate adverse effects related to rupture of an earthquake fault, nor from fault ruptures. Additionally, the Project would not cause or exacerbate adverse effects related to seismic shaking and future development of habitable structures within the Project site would be conducted in accordance with the CBC requirements and City grading code which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault and strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-12 to 4.6-13).

Seismic-Related Ground Failure (Liquefaction). The Project site is located within an area of susceptibility for liquefaction but is considered to be low risk due to the in-situ soil strength and a groundwater depth that exceeds 50 feet. Furthermore, on-site subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations indicated that conditions would not be considered to be conducive to liquefaction. Following the design parameters of the geotechnical study and all relevant building codes would reduce any potential issues due to liquefaction and no mitigation measures would be necessary. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13 to 4.6-14).

Landslides. The Project site has a gentle slopes and does not contain drastic elevation changes over short distances. There are no large, exposed, loose or unrooted boulders on the Project site, nor is the Project site located within close proximity to mountain foothills where landslides are most common. Therefore, the risk of landslides impacting the Project site is considered low to negligible. Therefore, impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13).

Impact 4.6-5 Would the Project be located on a geological 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? 869
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
11 Basis for Conclusion: As previously discussed, liquefaction and landslides are not considered to be a significant design concern for the Project. The potential for liquefaction-mediated lateral spreading and subsidence appears to be effectively zero. Subsidence in the City area is closely associated with groundwater levels; groundwater was not encountered during drilling at any boring locations. Subsidence is likely to occur if rapid groundwater extraction occurs in response to increased water demands, resulting from population growth or prolonged drought. However, the alluvial sediments within the basin would not be subject to subsidence risk as there has not been detectable elevation loss, according to California’s Groundwater Live: Land Subsidence GIS data. Additionally, the City would minimize potential impacts to subsidence through participation in local and regional efforts to conserve and recharge groundwater.

Therefore, compliance with all federal, state, and local policies and regulations, the Project would have a less than significant impact concerning on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, ground subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse and no mitigation measures are required (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15 through 4.6-16).

Impact 4.6-6: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Basis for Conclusion: The near-surface soils encountered during the field study for the Geotechnical Study investigation consisted of silty sands, gravelly sands, and well-graded sands with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles, and boulders; the materials were classified as non-expansive. As such, the Geotechnical Study does not anticipate expansive soils to adversely impact the design, construction, or operation of the Project. Furthermore, all grading and fill placement activities would be completed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC and the City’s grading code. Therefore, the Project site would not be impacted by significant soil expansion and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16).

Impact 4.6-7: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project does not propose septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16).

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.8-1: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Basis for Conclusion: Construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant hazard. The use of the materials would also be temporary and short-term or single-use in nature and would cease upon completion of the Project’s construction phase. Additionally, grading activities conducted during the construction phase could lead to the disturbance of on-site soils and expose contaminated soils. Since Project construction would involve the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, including potentially contaminated soils, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), the California Occupational Safety 870
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
12 and Health Administration (CalOSHA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. As such, associated Project construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operations of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial cleaners, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Additionally, the Project would require various outdoor landscape maintenance, which would include the storage and periodic use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. If equipment needed for such activities are used and housed onsite, the Project may require the storage of fuels and solvents on-site. Project operations may also involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. As with Project construction, Project operations would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for significant hazards to the public or the environment. As such, impacts from hazardous materials associated with Project operations would be less than significant.

Overall, the Project operations and construction would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing the routine use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. As such, impacts from hazardous materials resulting from Project implementation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15 through 4.9-16).

Impact 4.8-2: Would the Project 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?
Basis for Conclusion: The construction of the Project site could result in hazards to the public or the environment through the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials caused by accidental spillage of hazard materials used during construction phases, or as a result of the exposure of contaminated soil during grading activities. However, as previously discussed, the Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials to ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and to minimize potential for safety impacts.

This is also with respect to any spills or leakages that may occur during construction, so that safety impacts are reduced and the release of hazardous materials into the environment are maintained and do not create a significant hazard to the environment or the public. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by Riverside County Fire Department would be required through the duration of Project construction. As such, construction-related impacts to accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment and exposure to the public would be less than significant.

Project operations would involve typical hazardous materials and chemicals including but not limited to solvents and cleaning products associated with operations of industrial and warehouse types uses. 871
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
13 Additionally, the Project would require various outdoor landscape maintenance during operations that may include storage of, and periodic application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Prior to Project approval, a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) would be required to show Project conformance with all applicable materials handling protocols. As such, compliance with the aforementioned regulations would reduce significant impacts associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment and exposure to the public and a less than significant impact would occur.

Overall, Project construction and operations would be required to adhere to emergency response plan requirements and applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in addition to the proper protocol for any spills or leakages of such materials. With compliance with the aforementioned regulations and requirements associated with accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment and exposure to the public, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Impact 4.8-3 Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Basis for Conclusion: The nearest school to the Project site is Hoffer Elementary School approximately

0.27 mile to the west. At their closest points, the western boundary of the Project site and the eastern boundary of Hoffer Elementary School are approximately 0.27 mile apart. However, the majority of the Project site is located at least 0.75 mile from the nearest school. Due to the shape of the Project site the proposed structures would be located at least 0.75 mile away from the nearest school. The northwestern portion of the Project site, the area nearest the school, would include infrastructure improvements, such as the extension of Wilson Street and possible parking areas to serve the Project. Therefore, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or include the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, the transport of hazardous substances or materials to-and-from the Project site during construction and longterm operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, as previously mentioned, to reduce public safety hazards.

It was concluded in the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. As such, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction. It was also determined that the Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during operational activities of the Project. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-17 through 4.8-18).

Impact 4.8-4: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). The greater Project site was found to be without violations. No hazardous materials sites were located within or in the immediate vicinity of the 872
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
14 Project site. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts relative to Cortese List sites would occur with Project implementation. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.-18).

Impact 4.8-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is located within 2.0 miles of a public airport, the Banning Municipal Airport approximately 1,750 feet south of the Project site, on the opposite side of I-10. However, Exhibit V-7 of the Banning General Plan Noise Element shows that the Project is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Thus, the Project would not result in a safety hazard impact to people residing or working in the area and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-18).

Impact 4.8-6: Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Basis for Conclusion: The majority of the proposed worked to be done during the construction phase of the Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project site and would not impede access to nearby roadways. The City does not designate any roads as emergency evacuation routes within the Project site and any future construction on-site would not impede evacuation routes or interfere with the City’s emergency management program. Potential impediments to traffic flows may occur temporarily during the transport of heavy equipment and materials to and from the Project site but would be localized and would end after construction is completed.

Neither construction or operations of the Project site would interfere with emergency access or impede access to nearby roadways, nor would the Project interfere with the City’s emergency operations plan.

The Project would comply with design standards for emergency services and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19).

Impact 4.8-7: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Basis for Conclusion: According to CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and is designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). Considering the presence of area roadways, lack of steep slopes, and concrete construction of the Project, it is not anticipated that the Project site and associated structures would be affected by a wildfire during construction or operations. Additionally, as part of the Project site development, adjacent roadways would be improved which would serve to provide emergency ingress and egress to the Project site in the event of an emergency. Lastly the Project would comply with all applicable local and state regulations related to fire safety as evaluated through the City’s standard development review process. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-20). 873
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
15 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.9-1: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Basis for Conclusion: The Project would include the construction of an industrial warehouse with associated truck parking and loading docks. Associated construction activities include clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and the installation of landscaping. All activities could result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants that may consequently adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction activities in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. However, pursuant to the requirements of the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City of Banning, the Project would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction activities. Compliance with the NPDES permit and Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the Project site.

In addition to the NPDES permit, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required for managing the quality of stormwater or urban runoff that flows from a developed Project site after construction is completed and the Project site becomes occupied or operational. The WQMP would implement its own BMPs that would be maintained throughout the life of the Project to minimize and/or prevent water pollution caused by stormwater or urban runoff. The Project would also be required to comply with Waste Discharge Requirements as governed by the Colorado River RWQCB to regulate discharges that are not made to surface water, but which may impact the region’s water quality by affecting underlying groundwater basins. Since the Project would connect to the sanitary sewer system maintained by the City, the wastewater discharges into the sanitary sewer system would be treated and adequate operations would prevent wastewater discharges into the groundwater.

Lastly, the proposed drainage patterns and infrastructure would align with the existing drainage pattern on-site and runoff discharge rates would not experience a significant change.

Overall, associated Project construction and operations would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality following compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, NPDES requirements, and Colorado River RWQCB requirements. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-9 through 4.9-11).

Impact 4.9-2: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with the groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
874
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
16 Basis for Conclusion: The Project’s water demand would require, at most, 0.28 percent of the total water supply that is available to the City. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City, the City produces an average of 7,513 acre feet (AF) of groundwater per year. Assuming that all water consumed by the Project comes from groundwater, the Project’s annual water demand of 79 AF would consist of a one percent increase in the total amount of groundwater produced. This does not constitute a significant increase in consumptions and would not decrease the groundwater supply for the San Gorgonio Pass Groundwater Basin.

While the development of the Project site would increase the impervious surface area within the City, the Project would construct on-site stormwater infrastructure that would capture on-site stormwater flows only and direct them into on-site stormwater detention basins. These basins would allow surface water in infiltrate through the substrate and into the groundwater basin for recharge. A total of six basins would be constructed on-site and would have the capacity to detain 21.76 AF of storm flows on the Project site.

Additionally, the Project does not propose to alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site and would discharge stormwater in its existing locations.

As such, the Project would not significantly decrease groundwater supply in the basin or substantially limit the ability for stormwater and surface water to infiltrate and recharge the aquifer. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13).

Impacts 4.9-3, 4.9-4, 4.9-5 and 4.9-6: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which will: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on- or off-site?; (iii) Create or contribute runoff which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?; or (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Basis for Conclusion: 4.9-3 (Erosion and Siltation). The Project would be designed to accommodate the size of the development and would consist of retaining walls and other grading operations. However, the Project site would be designed, and stormwater infrastructure would be constructed, in a manner that generally maintains the overall existing drainage pattern of the Project site. Project construction would involve substantial ground disturbance, clearing, and grading of the Project site, and on-site erosion could occur. The proposed grading activities would generate fair amounts of silt which could be carried off-site during a heavy rainfall event and result in erosion and/or siltation downstream without any preventative measures. However, as previously discussed, the Project would be required to obtain a NPDES permit for construction activities on-site. Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the implementation of a SWPPP for construction related activities and associated BMPs to minimize erosion and siltation impacts and to protect water quality. Once operational, the Project would reduce the Project site’s existing potential for generating substantial amounts of erosion or siltation because the previously undeveloped site that contributed to erosion and siltation would be replaced with a building, paving, landscaped areas, and other stabilized ground covers. Additionally, a Project-specific WQMP would be implemented along 875
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
17 with the associated WQMP BMPs that would treat common surface water pollutants during Project operations.

With adherence to the NPDES permit requirements, including the implementation of SWPPP and associated BMPs, and adherence to the Project’s WQMP and associated BMPs, Project implementation would have a less than significant impact on erosion and siltation and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-13 through 4.9-14).

4.9-4 (On- or Off-Site Flooding). Project runoff calculations for the 100-year storm event were performed and it was determined that the Project’s runoff flow rate, volume, velocity, and duration would not exceed the pre-development conditions for the 2-year, 24-hour and 10-year, 24-hour rainfall events through implementation of Site-Design BMP concepts and low impact development (LID)/Site Design BMPSs.

Additionally, the City’s Municipal Code requires land development activities to include provisions for the management of stormwater runoff from the property, which is to include volumetric or flow-based treatment control BMP design criteria, which shall consist of constructing storage and/or infiltration facilities including basins and make provision to store runoff from rainfall events up to and including the 100-year 3-hour duration event. As previously discussed, the Project would include six detention basins that would have the capacity to detain 21.76 AF of storm flows on the Project site. Post-development peak urban runoff discharge rates would not exceed pre-development peak urban runoff discharge rates.

With the implementation of BMPs to minimize impacts from runoff and compliance with existing regulatory framework associated with flood management, Project implementation would have a less than significant impact to on- and off-site flooding and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-14 through

4.9-15).

4.9-5 (Stormwater Drainage System Capacity and Polluted Runoff). As previously discussed, the Project’s post-development peak runoff discharge rates would not exceed pre-development peak urban runoff and applicable BMPs would be implemented to reduce impacts. The BMPs would not only minimize runoff from the Project site, but would help improve water quality as well and manage pollutants in stormwater runoff. Additionally, the six proposed detention basins would help to manage stormwater flows on- and off-site. With the implementation of the associated BMPs, compliance with NPDES requirements, and the inclusion of the six detention basins on-site, the Project would have a less than significant impact to the stormwater drainage system capacity and polluted runoff, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16 through 4.9-17).

4.9-6 (Impede or Redirect Flood Flows). The Project would capture stormwater flows originating on the Project site which would account for and capture the entirety of the 100-year 3-hour duration event. The Project would also follow existing flow patterns after construction. While a portion of the Project site is located within a mapped flood hazard area (Zone A and Zone X), the Project site would be designed such that the development would be above the flood elevation. As a result, the Project would be required to complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) and a letter of map revision (LOMR) process prior to grading/construction and prior to building occupancy.

This process would alter the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) flood zones for the portions of the Project that are within these areas. As the overall drainage flow pattern would not change across the 876
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
18 Project site after construction, flood flows that may occur on the Project site would similarly not be altered. As such, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required (Draft EIR p. 4.9-18).

Impact 4.9-7: Would the Project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Basis for Conclusion: The Pacific Ocean is located more than 50miles from the Project site. The San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains lie between the Project site and the Pacific Ocean. Considering this distance, there is no potential for the Project site to be impacted by a tsunami. Additionally, there are no standing bodies of water, such as lakes, ponds, reservoirs, or inland seas, on or adjacent to the Project site such that seiche would occur in the event of an earthquake, periods of high wind, or other seiche causing event.

The Project site resides within FEMA Flood Zone A and Zone X and would complete a FEMA CLOMR and LOMR process. The Preliminary Off-site Hydrology and Flood Hazard Assessment conducted for the Project site confirmed the Project site is subject to a portion of flows emanating from the west of the San Gorgonio River along with a portion of the breakout flows from the main bank of the San Gorgonio River. Existing flood depths within the Project site and surrounding area directly north are less than

0.25 feet (three inches) during the 100-year flood event. Although the runoff rate and volume levels were determined to be significant, the flows are dispersed over a large enough area to result in a shallow depth, with flow velocity generally less than 2 feet per second, which is considered “low damage” according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Downstream Hazard Classification Guidelines. As the overall flood depth would be less than three inches, flow velocities would be less than 2 feet per second, and the Project would be designed to intercept and accommodate the 100-year 3-hour duration event, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18 through 4.9-19).

Impact 4.9-8: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is located within the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Basin and is classified as “medium” priority per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). As such, the basin is required to develop a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) and a groundwater sustainability plan (GSPs) to manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. The City, in conjunction with the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, Banning Heights Municipal Water Agency, Cabazon Water District, Desert Water Agency, and the Mission Springs Water District, would comply with the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin GSP. Additionally, as previously mentioned, the Project would be required to obtain a NPDES permit and adhere to the requirements of the permit to ensure impacts to water quality during Project implementation are minimized. By abiding to the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin GSP and the NPDES permit, the Project would not obstruct with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19 through 4.9-20). 877
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
19 LAND USE & PLANNING
Impact 7.3-1: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site would be developed on vacant and undeveloped land that is designated as Business Park by the City’s General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map. The immediate surrounding area consists of General Plan designations such as Business Park, Public Facilities, High Density Residential, as well as the Morongo Reservation. No established communities exist within the Project site, nor does the Project propose or require elements or operations that would divide an existing off-site community. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-3).

Impact 7.3-2: Would the Project 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?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project would be required to comply with any applicable state, regional, and local land use plans, policies, and regulations, including the City’s land use plans, policies and regulations.

The General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site is Business Park, which permits light industrial manufacturing and office/warehouse buildings. The proposed development includes approximately 1,320,284 square feet of industrial space with office space, loading docks, tractor-trailer parking stalls, passenger vehicle parking spaces, and landscaping. Additionally, the construction and design of the buildings would comply with the development standards and design guidelines contained in the Banning Municipal Code. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7.3-3).

MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 7.4-1: Would the Project 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? Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is located on lands designated as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2), which designates land that may contain significant mineral deposits. The Project site is currently undeveloped and is not utilized for mineral resource extraction and no mineral extraction has occurred on the Project site. Additionally, mineral extraction would result in incompatible uses with the Business Park zoning and land use designations on-site and in the immediate surroundings. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 7.3 to 7.4).

NOISE
Impact 4.10-1: Would the Project result in the generation of 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?
878
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
20 Basis for Conclusion: Following the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, construction-generated noise levels associated with the Project were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) computer program. The noise levels calculated show that construction-related noise levels to the nearest sensitive receptor would not exceed the City’s 70 dBA threshold. Off-site construction traffic noise was also calculated and was also determined to not exceed the City’s threshold. Additionally, construction activities would only be permitted during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. As such, on- and off-site construction noise would have a less than significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-6 through 4.10-9).

During operations, the major noise sources associated with the Project would include stationary noise equipment; truck and loading docks; parking areas; and off-site traffic noise. Noise from the associated sources were calculated to determine the Project’s associated operational noise impacts. It was determined that noise associated with mechanical equipment, warehouse truck and loading docks, parking, and off-site traffic are all below the City’s noise standards. As such, noise associated with Project operations would have a less than significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9 through 4.10-12).

Overall, associated Project construction and operation noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise standards. Project construction would be limited to daytime hours as to not adversely impact nearby sensitive receptors. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the General Plan and Municipal Code noise standards. As such, Project construction and operations would not generate noise levels in excess of City standards, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Impact 4.10-2: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Basis for Conclusion: Vibration generated both from construction- and operation-related sources were both determined to not exceed the FTA thresholds for disturbance. The nearest structure to the Project site (a multi-family residential structure) is approximately 400 feet to the west of the Project site and associated construction equipment would not generate ground vibration that exceeds the FTA thresholds for both building damage and annoyance based on the distance of the Project site to the nearest structure.

Associated operational vibration include truck movement activity at the Project site. These movements would generally be low-speed and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. As such, it is not anticipated that truck activity would result in excessive groundborne vibrations. The Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14).

Impact 4.10-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Basis for Conclusion: The closest airport to the Project site is the Banning Municipal Airport located approximately 1,750 feet to the south. Although the Project is within two miles of a public airport, Exhibit V-7 of the Banning General Plan Noise element shows that the Project is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL 879
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
21 noise contour. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise levels, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-14).

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 7.5-1: Would the Project 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)? Basis for Conclusion: The Project does not include new residential development on- or off-site and would not directly contribute to population growth within the City in this regard. The Project would remain designated and zoned as Business Park, which allows land uses such as light industrial manufacturing, office/warehouse buildings, professional offices, restaurants, and retail uses ancillary to a primary use. It is anticipated that existing residents within the City and neighboring communities within Riverside County would likely fill Project-related employment demands. Additionally, SCAG forecasts that the City’s employment will increase to 11,400 jobs by 2045. As Project buildout is estimated for 2045, the Project’s estimated 2,841 employees is within the employment forecasts for the City.

The extension of roadways to serve the Project site would only extend roadways from the existing City of Banning network to the furthest extent needed to serve the Project. The Project would not construct roads or provide roadway improvements to areas of the City where the is no existing development or planned projects. As such, the Project would not contribute to direct or indirect unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 7-4 to 7-5).

Impact 7.5-2: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Basis for Conclusion: No housing currently exists within the Project site and the Project does not propose uses or activities that would otherwise displace housing assets or persons. Based on the preceding, the Project would have no impact related to displacement of housing or displacement of people (Draft EIR, p. 7-5).

PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 4.11-1: 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:

Basis for Conclusion: Fire Protection. The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), and the Project would be served by the nearest RCFD fire station, Station 89. The RCFD operates under a Regional Fire Protection Program, which allows its fire stations to actively support one another regardless of geographic or jurisdictional boundaries. The Morongo Reservation Fire Department is also nearby, located 2.4 miles northeast of the Project site, and has a standing mutual aid agreement with the County of Riverside. Based on the Project’s close proximity to Station 89 as well as the 880
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
22 Morongo Reservation Fire Department, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services. Furthermore, the City General Plan proposed additional fire stations, one of which is in the vicinity of the Banning Municipal Airport, which is south of the Project site on the opposite side of I-10 (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-12).

The Project would also be required to comply with requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance which would ensure that adequate emergency access is available on the Project site. The Project would also comply with the City Municipal Code Section 12.12.070 which prescribes protective measures and routing of traffic during construction that closes lanes or roadway segments temporarily. The Project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes through multiple points of ingress/egress. The Project would not alter or impact any existing emergency access roads or evacuation routes as identified in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Community Vulnerability Profile Map 1: Banning’s Regional Evacuation Route. The Project would provide access to the identified evacuation routes through street and access improvements.

Lastly, the Project would be required to pay development impact fees as a condition of approval. With payment of these fees, the Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Additionally, the Project would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. The Project would comply with the RCFD Technical Policies and Standards, California Fire Code (CFC), and CBC, including Project features that aid in fire safety and support fire suppression activities.

Considering that the Project would be adequately serviced by existing fire services and would comply with all federal, state, and local policies governing fire safety, the Project would not significantly impact the existing fire services and associated infrastructure and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-13).

Police Protection. As previously mentioned, the Project would comply with City Municipal Code Section 12.12.070. Emergency services, including the Banning Police Department (BPD), would be consulted to ensure construction and design document compliance with the City of Banning Municipal Code and that adequate public safety and circulation would be maintained during construction. As previously discussed, compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all new development and redevelopment projects. The Project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes through multiple points of ingress/egress and would not alter or impact any existing emergency access roads. Additionally, the Project would be required to pay development impact fees that would ensure police protection services are not significantly impacted by new development. As such, the Project would not significantly impact the existing police protection services and associated infrastructure, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-14).

Schools. The Project site would not create a direct demand for public school services, as the proposed development does not contain residential uses that could generate any school-aged children requiring 881
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
23 public education. Employment demands for the Project are anticipated to be filled by the existing unemployed population residing in the City and surrounding communities within the County. The Project would not directly generate a student population increase or indirectly draw students to the area, prompting the need for construction or physical alteration of existing public school facilities. Additionally, the Project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees to the Banning Unified School District to offset costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. As such, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered school facilities and would therefore not cause significant environmental impacts and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-15).

Parks. No park facilities currently exist on the Project site and Project development would not conflict with any nearby park facilities or require modification or construction of park facilities. Additionally, the Project does not propose residential uses that would generate an increase in population requiring new park facilities. As such, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically alter existing park facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-16).

Other Public Facilities. The Project would not create a direct demand for other public facilities considering the proposed use does not include residential uses that would generate population growth requiring other public facilities. Therefore, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically alter existing public facilities. Furthermore, no public facilities exist on the Project site and Project development would not conflict with existing public structures or require modification of any public facility. As such, the Project would result in a less than significant impact to other public facilities and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-16).

RECREATION
Impact 7.6-1: 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?
Basis for Conclusion: No park facilities exist on the Project site and Project development would not conflict with any nearby park facilities or require the modification or construction of park facilities. The Project would not contain residential uses that would generate population growth requiring park facilities.

Although the Project would create additional jobs in the area, it is expected that the Project employment demands would be filled by existing residents in the City, Riverside County, and surrounding area. As such, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or substantially deteriorate existing park facilities and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 7-5 through 7-6).

Impact 7.6-2: Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
882
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
24 Basis for Conclusion: The Project consists of an industrial use, which does not generally result in significant amounts of park usage. The Project does not propose or require the construction of any new on- or offsite recreational facilities, nor would it require the expansion of any existing recreational facilities.

Therefore, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur with implementation of the Project and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-6).

TRANSPORTATION
Impact 4.12-1: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Basis for Conclusion: The Project would adhere to the City General Plan goals and policies outlined in the Circulation Element. In fact, the Project’s circulation network would be designed consistently with the existing transportation system by adhering to the transportation guidelines set in the City’s General Plan.

If applicable, the Project would comply with the City’s Development Impact Fee program, which would require a payment of fees to ensure that the Project’s impact would not significantly impact the regional circulation and/or arterial expansions planned by the City and County.

While the City does not currently have a bicycle or pedestrian circulation plan, the development impact fees would go toward any future bicycle or pedestrian plans or future improvements to existing facilities.

Additionally, the Project would improve pedestrian walkways adjacent to the Project site and be designed to ensure pedestrian safety. Additionally, the Project would support public transit use by improving roadway circulation and pedestrian walkways near the Project site. This would allow employees to utilize public transit, especially the bus routes nearest the Project site, Banning Routes 1 and 6. The development impact fees would also support the expansion of public transit near the Project site.

Overall, the Project would not conflict with the relevant goals, policies, and ordinances, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10 through 4.12-12).

Impact 4.12-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project site does not currently have direct access to the roadway network of the City of Banning. Wilson Drive and Nicolet Street east of Hathaway Street and O’Donnell Street are platted roadway rights-of-way within the City that would be constructed to serve the Project. The Project would also include roadway improvements along the Project frontages. The design of all roadway improvements would not include geometric designs that would increase hazards or incompatible uses. The Project’s design features would include the creation of new driveways, improvements of adjacent/nearby roadways, and development of internal circulation pathways. Specifically, these improvements would be designed in conformance with the development and design standards of the Banning General Plan and Banning MC design standards, which include but is not limited to Banning MC Section 17.24.040, “Each structure or use shall maintain direct access to a public right-of-way. Where a structure or use is 883
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
25 part of a larger project, such as shopping center, all structures shall maintain reciprocal access easements through parking lots. Wherever possible, circulation systems shall interconnect between projects, and limit access onto arterial roadways.”
As such, the Project site would have safe and efficient movement of traffic within and throughout the Project site. Furthermore, this would ensure that the Project would not introduce any sharp curves for the public and Project uses, or create dangerous intersections, or design hazards. Lastly, the Project does not propose incompatible land uses that would result in a potential significant traffic safety hazard.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible land use, and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-22 to 4.12-23).

Impact 4.12-4: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Basis for Conclusion: As previously stated, Wilson Street and Nicolet Street are platted roadway rights-ofway within the City that would be constructed to serve the Project east of Hathaway Street and O’Donnell Street. Wilson Street and Nicolet Street intersect Hathaway Street and would be constructed as part of coordination between the development of this Project, developers of adjacent properties, and the City.

Should the construction of Nicolet Street be delayed for any reason, the Project would be required to provide a secondary access to the Project site. This extension would not be a permanent roadway improvement and would occur through already disturbed areas. This secondary access would only be required as conditioned by the City upon Project approval.

Project site ingress and egress for the warehouse building would be via two driveways: one 44-foot driveway at the intersection of Nicolet Street and O’Donnell Street; one 52-foot driveway along Wilson Drive. Additionally, while not considered part of the Project, the City has currently proposed a roadway alignment on the eastern portion of the Project site. This road would connect the Project to a proposed interchange with I-10. At such a point when the proposed interchange and roadway are constructed, there would be an additional location for regional access to the Project site. Emergency access to the Project site would be provided by the proposed driveways located at the intersection of Nicolet Street and O’Donnell Street and at the driveway along Wilson Drive.

Furthermore, design of any needed roadway improvement and subsequent construction due to increased traffic volumes on local roadways would comply with the applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to emergency access and evacuation plans. The proposed design and construction plans for any future construction and roadway improvement, including potential mitigation to accommodate any future increase in traffic volume, would be reviewed and approved by the City engineering department and fire marshal (if needed) during the plan review and prior to Project approval. As such, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and would comply with design standards for emergency services and impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR p. 4.11-23 through 4.11-24).
884
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
26 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 4.14-1: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Basis for Conclusion: Water Use. Potable water to the Project site would be provided by the City of Banning Public Works and Utilities Department. The City of Banning Public Works and Utilities Department provides water to its service area primarily via groundwater. The majority of Project water facilities would be installed below ground and installed within existing or future road rights-of-way, and as such the only physical impacts would be associated with temporary impacts during construction. Additionally, compliance with the NPDES permit, Waste Discharge Order (WDR), BMPs, and the City’s Municipal Code would ensure the Project meets all mandatory construction stormwater management requirements. All Project water facilities would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations in the City. This includes the stipulation that a Project-specific WQMP be prepared that identifies BMPs that would be implemented during operation that would treat common surface water pollutants, including silts. In consideration of existing requirements, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to Project water facilities (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-14).

Wastewater. The Project would utilize the City of Banning Public Works – Wastewater Division’s existing wastewater infrastructure along with new proposed infrastructure meant to serve the Project area. To provide a conservative estimate of wastewater generation, it is assumed that the Project would generate the same amount of wastewater as water demanded. Therefore, it should be assumed that the Project would generate approximately 1.9 percent of the Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) daily capacity. Originally, the Draft EIR calculated the percentage to be 1.08 percent, however this percentage has been updated to 1.9 percent to reflect the correctly estimated percentage of daily capacity of wastewater of the Banning WWTP that the Project would generate and is included in the Section 3.0 Errata of the Final EIR. Therefore, no new wastewater treatment facilities would need to be constructed for the Project.

A sanitary sewer lift station would be required to be constructed to serve the Project. However, this sanitary lift station would serve all other projects in the vicinity to the Project. As this area of the City has been identified by the City for development and was analyzed within the General Plan EIR, this new infrastructure would not have been previously unknown. Further, the lift station, and associated force main and gravity main, would be constructed within already established right-of-way or within easements to be dedicated to the City on land previously disturbed. As the expansion of these services would have previously been analyzed and the areas in which the infrastructure would be installed would be in previously disturbed areas, there would not be significant impacts related to the expansion of these services and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-14 through

4.14-15).

Stormwater and Drainage. The Project’s proposed storm drain infrastructure would include infrastructure installed as part of the roadway improvements of Wilson Street and O’Donnell Street, and 885
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
27 along the Project frontages. These storm drains would be conveyed into existing City storm conveyance infrastructure. In addition, on-site storm sewer infrastructure would be constructed to intercept and store the 100-year 3-hour duration event storm flows pursuant to the City MC Section 13.24.110. The Project’s stormwater and drainage facilities would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and City. Lastly, the Project would also follow the Project-specific WQMP prepared for the Project that identifies BMPs what would be implemented during operation that would treat for common surface water pollutants, including silts. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater and drainage facilities that would result in significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-15 through 4.14-16).

Electricity. Existing on-site Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission lines would be relocated to accommodate the Project. These transmission lines would be rerouted and installed underground within the right-of-way of Nicolet Street, O’Donnell Street, and Wilson Street as part of the off-site roadway improvements along the Project frontages. Furthermore, the new infrastructure would be completely underground, pursuant City MC Section 17.24.170. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electricity facilities that would result in significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-16).

The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility infrastructure and facilities such that relocation or construction would result in substantial adverse impacts to the environment. All design and construction would adhere to applicable standards, policies, and regulations as outlined in associated regulatory documents including but not limited to the City’s Municipal Code, CVWD, CWA, and requirements associated with NPDES permitting, WQMP, BMPs, and WDRs. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Impact 4.14-2: Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Basis for Conclusion: The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that was prepared for the Project determined that the Project’s water demand would be less than one percent of the total available water supply and consumption. Furthermore, the WSA would be more conservative that the City’s 2020 UWMP, and the Project’s water demand would still only be less than one percent of the available supply. Since water consumption rates would be decreased as a result of an increase in efficiencies of water appliances and use of water, daily water generated by the Project site would be minimal. Additionally, the Project, along with other future industrial projects, have been incorporated into the projected water demands for the City’s 2020 UWMP and were reasonably accommodated into future water supplies during normal, dry-, and multiple dry-years. Since these water demands have been incorporated and accounted for, and do not directly necessitate the further development of water infrastructure, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-16 through 4.14-17). 886
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
28 Impact 4.14-3: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Basis for Conclusion: The Project’s proposed industrial uses would be consistent with the City’s current land use and zoning designations of Business Park for the Project site, and thus, would have been accounted for in the City’s General Plan and UWMP. Additionally, as previously stated, the Project would generate approximately 1.9 percent of the Banning WWTP daily capacity. According to the City’s General Plan FEIR, average industrial wastewater generation in 2018 was calculated to be 750 gallons per acre per day (gpd). Using the 2018 generation rates for industrial uses, a less conservative approach, the WSA found that the Project could generate approximately 22,727 gallons per day (gpd), which would account for 0.6 percent of the Banning WWTP daily capacity. Originally, the Draft EIR had miscalculated the percentage as 1.7 percent; however, this error has been updated to 0.6 percent to reflect the Project’s correctly estimated percentage of wastewater generation of Banning WWTP daily capacity and is included in Section 3.0 Errata of the Final EIR. As such, even with the conservative estimates, the Banning WWTP would have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand. As such, impacts to wastewater treatment flows and capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-18 to 4.14-19).

Impact 4.19-4: Would the Project 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?
Basis for Conclusion: While the Project is anticipated to generate solid waste during both construction and operational phases, it is not anticipated that generated solid waste would result in inadequate landfill capacity. The Project would comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding solid waste, including state and local solid waste standards and reduction goals. All solid waste within the City would be deposited at the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, and/orthe Badlands Landfill for disposal. Combined, the three landfills have a remaining capacity of 171,020,120 cubic yards with a daily throughput of 26,054 tons per day. The Project is estimated to generate approximately 7,920 pounds per day, or approximately 3.96 tons per day for the 1,320,284 square foot building area of the Project. As such, the Project’s waste generation would be 0.02 percent of the combined daily throughput of all landfills. The Project would not result in excess capacity of local infrastructure or impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-19 through

4.14-20).

Impact 4.14-5: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Basis for Conclusion: The Project would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding solid waste, including those of the County. The Project is anticipated to generate solid waste during both construction and operational phases but not in excess resulting in inadequate landfill capacity.

As such, The Project would be compliant with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and reduction strategies related to solid waste and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-20).
887
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
29 WILDFIRE
Impact 4.15-1: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Basis for Conclusion: According to the CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program, FHSZ Viewer, the Project site is not located in or near an SRA; the nearest SRA to the development site is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is located within an LRA designated as a VHFHSZ, as identified on the latest FHSZ maps prepared by CAL FIRE (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-13). The Project site is adjacent to vacant land that extends to the base of the San Bernardino Mountains, where high wind conditions periodically occur that have the potential to dramatically spread wildland fires. The proposed parking areas and Wilson Street extension within the northern portion of the Project site would provide buffer between vacant lands to the north and the proposed structure in a way that could reduce wildfire risk to structures. The Project would also be required to incorporate wildfire prevention design techniques in accordance with the City of Banning General Plan Program 3.A, such as the use of “defensible space,” fire retardant sidings, optimal site planning and building orientation, landscaping orientation, and other design approaches to reduce wildfire hazards.

Additionally, the Project site would comply with the City of Banning General Plan Program 3.B and would provide adequate emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes through multiple points of ingress/egress. The Project would not alter or impact any existing emergency access roads or evacuation routes as identified in the WRCOG Community Vulnerability Profile Map 1: Banning’s Regional Evacuation Route. The Project site would provide access to the identified evacuation routes through street and access improvements. A Wildfire Fire Evacuation Plan (WEP) was prepared specifically for the Project and focuses on wildland fire evacuations. Ultimately, the WEP will be used to educate the evacuation approach during wildfires and other similar emergencies and links to important citizen preparedness information. The City of Banning Police Department would be the primary law enforcement agency responsible for evacuations within the City’s jurisdiction. The City also contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department/ CAL FIRE for fire protection.

The proposed construction, along with the removal of any brush, trees, and grasses would limit the potential for wildfire spreading by removal of source materials. Since there will be multiple points of ingress/egress and building designs would be compliant with state, regional, and local regulations, buildout of the Project would not interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans for the City.

Lastly, in accordance with the City of Banning General Plan Program 3.C, the City shall adopt standard requirements for all development proposal in High Fire Hazard Areas, including requirements for the preparation of Fire Protection Plans (FPP) prior to the approval of Tentative Tract Maps, Tentative Parcel Maps, or other land use permits. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur associated with the substantial impairment of an adopted emergency response plan (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-13 through 4.15-15). 888
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
30 Impact 4.15-2: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site does not currently have direct access to the roadway network of the City. However, the improvements to Wilson Street and Nicolet Street east of Hathaway Street and O’Donnell Street and associated roadway improvements would improve access to the City’s evacuation routes. The addition of these new and improved roadways would also act as fuel breaks, further preventing the uncontrolled spread of wildfire.

Wildfire may occur in wildland areas that surround the Project site, but would not be meaningfully increased in frequency, duration, or size with the construction of the Project. The Project’s on-site fire potential will be much lower than its current condition due to conversion of wildland fuels to a building, parking areas, managed landscapes, fuel modification areas, improved accessibility for fire personnel, and structures built to the latest ignition and ember resistant fire codes. Additionally, the Project would comply with applicable City policies mitigating or minimizing wildfire hazard risks. In accordance with the City of Banning General Plan Program 3.A, the Project would be required to incorporate wildfire prevention design techniques, such as the use of “defensible space,” retardant sidings, optimal site planning and building orientation, landscaping orientation, and other design approaches to reduce wildfire hazards. The Project would also build all structures consistent with the latest CBC which also includes features to minimize fire hazards. Due to the presence of area roadways, lack of steep slopes, and concrete construction of the Project, it is not likely to be affected by a wildfire during construction or operations. As such, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-18 to 4.15-20).

Impact 4.15-4: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes? Basis for Conclusion: The Project site is on relatively flat ground and not adjacent to steep slopes. The Project site is surrounded by suburban development and vacant land that is also relatively flat. According to FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), much of the Project site exists within Zone X, indicative of areas of minimal flood hazard. However, the northeast portion of the Project site, an area encompassing approximately 47.5 acres, is designated as Zone A, a hazard area with a one percent annual chance of flooding (100-year flood hazard area). However, the WQMP and Preliminary Hydrology Calculations Reports concluded that the proposed drainage improvements would adequately convey flows to the proposed basins and would also capture runoff adequately. As such, the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to significant risks resulting from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage change. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-21).
889
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
31 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS The City of Banning, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, the Technical Appendices and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially significant environmental effects. The City finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.

AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM AQ-6 is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potential sensitive receptor impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare center, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The Project is surrounded mainly by vacant and undeveloped land. Some residential uses are located west of Hathaway Street, and the Morongo Reservation is located to the north of the Project site. The nearest sensitive receptor is a multi-family residential apartment complex located approximately 400 feet to the west of the Project site (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-24).

Project emissions for both construction and operations were estimated using CaIEEMod and SCQAMD Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology to determine the Project’s impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The results of the analysis determined that Project construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD LST at each nearby sensitive receptor. Additionally, LSTs were estimated for Project operations using a worst-case scenario including all on-site Project-related stationary sources and three percent of mobile sources. It was determined that Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-25).

The Project’s carbon monoxide (CO) emissions would not result in excess CO generation such that a CO hotspot would be created. CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersection. As part of the SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in southern California with an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. The Banning General Plan Circulation Element shows existing and future traffic volumes for major roadways. Access to I-10 would be from Ramsey Street, which would have a maximum of 22,418 ADT near the Project site. The Project is estimated to induce ADT to 27,801 vehicles per day. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even 890
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
32 as it accommodates approximately 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that the CO hotspots would not be experience at any Project vicinity intersections. Therefore, impacts with respect to CO exceedances would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p.4.2-29).

A chronic hazard was calculated based on the highest annual average concentration at the maximally exposed individual receptor. The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with unmitigated diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the Project would be 0.022. The chronic hazard index threshold is one (1). Therefore, even without mitigation, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. With mitigation, the chronic hazard would be reduced to 0.011. Therefore, impacts associated with non-carcinogenic risk would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-30).

A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the Project and conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment exhaust; paving; architectural coating application; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. Accordingly, the Project would result in a maximum cancer risk of 6.53 in one million for residents and 6.12 in one million for workers which is below SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. SCAQMD Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to earn Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points by completing actions off the WAIRE Menu. As such the Project would implement MM AQ-6, which would require charging stations for cargo handling equipment. MM AQ-6 allows the Project to be in compliance with Rule 2305 as part of the WAIRE program. Additionally, with the implementation of MM AQ-6, the maximum cancer risk from the Project would decrease to 4.30 per million for residents and 3.00 per million for workers. Therefore, impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be mitigated with the implementation of MM AQ-6 to less than significant levels (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-30).

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-6 The Project shall include necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show that all outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 891
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
33 Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential species/habitat impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: The Project site occurs partially within a predetermined Survey Area for two Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Narrow Endemic Plan Species (NEPS), including Yucaipa (Marvin’s) onion (Allium marvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). According to the MSHCP guidelines, focused surveys are required during the appropriate flowering season to document the presence/absence of these species if suitable habitat is present and if the property is located within a predetermined Survey Area. Focused surveys for both MSHCP NEPS were conducted during the Spring of 2023 to determined presence/absence and neither of the two MSHCP NEPS were detected during the Project surveys and are therefore not expected to occur due to lack of observation (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-12).

Although the Project site possess suitable habitat for three MSHCP covered plant species, including Payson’s jewelflower (Caulanthus simulanus), Perry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), and slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), the Project site is not located within a survey area for these species and the MSHCP has determined that all these sensitive species potentially occurring on-site have been adequately covered and no surveys are required (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-12).

Additionally, the Project site is not located within an MSHCP criteria area Species Survey Area, and no surveys are required. Further, the Project site possesses suitable habitat for two MSHCP non-covered plant species including chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) and Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii). Focused surveys for sensitive plants were conducted during the Spring of 2023 to determine presence/absence. No sensitive plants including other California Native Plant Society (CNPS) special-status plants, or species of local concern were observed or expected onsite.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur concerning sensitive plant species (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-12).

An initial Burrowing Owl habitat assessment was conducted during the winter of 2022. Eight focused Burrowing Owl surveys were also conducted on March 8, 9, 20, April 12, and 19, May 3, 30, and 31 of 2023. Suitable burrowing owl burrows potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting were documented adjacent to the property including foraging habitat documented throughout the Project site. No burrowing owl or characteristic sign such as white-wash, feathers, tracks, or pellets were detected within or immediately adjacent to the Project site during the 2023 survey efforts. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. As such, MM BIO-1 would be implemented to ensure a 30-day pre-construction survey for burrowing owls is conducted prior to initial ground-disturbing activities. During visual surveys, all potentially suitable burrow or structure entrances are investigated for signs of owl occupation and carefully observed to determine if burrowing owls utilize these features, when present. No burrowing owl or characteristic signs were detected within or immediately adjacent to the Project site during the 2023 survey effort (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-12 through

4.3-13).
892
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
34 A total of six MSHCP Planning Species, Bell’s sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), white-tailed kite (elanus leucurus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), have the potential to occur within the Project site. While the MSHCP had determined that these sensitive species potentially occurring within the Project site have been adequately covered, and no surveys are required, the Project would still be required to comply with Standard Condition (SC) BIO-1, which would require the payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. While the payment of these fees is not mitigation of Project impacts in it of themselves, these fees would allow the MSHCP to implement the plan (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-13).

Although the Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) is not covered by the MSHCP and no suitable habitat was identified on the Project site for the species, the prevalence and ubiquitous nature of Crotch’s bumble bee habitat throughout the state and region would provide for a reasonable, and conservative, assumption that suitable scattered foraging habitat for the species is present. The purpose of the SC BIO-1 would allow MSHCP to acquire and preserve higher quality habitat than those currently present for special-status species, such as the Crotch’s bumble bee (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-13).

A total of 14 sensitive species has the potential to occur within the Project site. Potential impacts to MSHCP planning species would be mitigated following implementation of MM BIO-1 and compliance with SC BIO-1. Furthermore, MM BIO-2 would implement a nesting bird pre-construction survey, that would also be implemented to reduce impacts to important biological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-13 through

4.3-14).

Standard Conditions:

SC BIO-1 MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. The Project Applicant shall pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees, as a standard condition, as established and implemented by the City of Banning. Five categories of the fee are defined and include: Residential, density less than 8.0 dwelling units per acre $4,236 per dwelling unit; Residential, density between 8.0 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre $1,766 per dwelling unit; Residential, density greater than 14.1 dwelling units per acre $781 per dwelling unit; Commercial $19,066 per acre; and Industrial $19,066 per acre. The Project proposes industrial uses and would utilize the $19,066 per acre fee.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Burrowing Owl 30-Day Pre-Construction Surveys. In order to avoid Project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site and violation of the Burrowing Owl Protocol and the California Fish and Game Code 3503. 3503.5, and 3513, a 30-day preconstruction survey presence/absence survey for burrowing owl within the Impact Site (and 500-foot survey buffer) in accordance with the March 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County MSHCP Area shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to initial ground disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, grading, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging) to ensure that no owls have colonized the Project site in the days or 893
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
35 weeks preceding the ground disturbing activities. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of Project activities and reported to CDFW.

If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If burrowing owls have colonized the Project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately stop work and inform the City of Banning and the Wildlife Agencies (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]). In consultation with the Wildlife Agencies additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be undertaken including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protecting and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owls. If active nests are identified on an implementing Project site during the pre-construction survey, the Project applicant shall not commence activities until no sign is present that the burrows are being used by adult or juvenile owls or following CDFW approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan as described below. If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion-activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow occupancy. The on-site qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

The qualified biologist and Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Plan to be approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City will implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

If active burrowing owl burrows are detected within Impact Site(s) during Project implementation and construction, the Project applicant shall notify CDFW immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. A Burrowing Owl Plan will be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two weeks of detection and no Project activity will continue within 1000 feet of the burrowing owls until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City shall be responsible for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

A final report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist documenting the results of the burrowing owl surveys and detailing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. 894
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
36 The final report will be provided to City of Banning and CDFW within 30 days of completion of the survey and burrow monitoring for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

MM BIO-2 Nesting Bird Preconstruction Surveys. Regulatory requirement for potential direct/indirect impacts to nesting common and sensitive bird species will require compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game (CDFG) Code Section 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) should be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, outside of the peak nesting season. Regardless of the time of year, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation grubbing, and grading.

The survey(s) will focus on identifying any bird nests that would be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. The survey area will include the Project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint. Within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, all areas surveyed by the biologist will be cleared by the Contractor or a supplemental nesting bird survey is required. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
• Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.
• Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are identified during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Banning, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the 895
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
37 Project biologist determines the young have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of Project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such Project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are disturbing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a final monitoring report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, will be submitted to the City of Banning documenting compliance with the CDFG Code.

Impact 4.3-2: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Findings:

1. Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM BIO-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the riparian impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: No riparian scrub, forest, or woodlands habitat are located within the Project site.

Also, no vegetation communities listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as sensitive were documented within or adjacent to the Project site. A total of 131.28 acres of desert scrub, non-native grassland, Riversidean sage scrub, and disturbed/developed vegetation communities will be directly and permanently impacted by Project implementation. As such, the Project would implement MM BIO-3. MM BIO-3 would require either the creation of 1.62-acres of habitat or purchase of a minimum of 1.62-acres of habitat creation credits from an approved mitigation bank. However, there is not current existing mitigation bank approved for the Whitewater River watershed. If a mitigation bank 896
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
38 were to be approved for the Whitewater River watershed, a minimum purchase of 1.62-acres of habitat creation credits would be required. Additionally, if mitigation is not feasible, creation of non-wetland waters at an off-site location would be required. Any on- or off-site mitigation would require long-term maintenance and management by a qualified conservancy, including payment of a non-wasting endowment to fund the long-term maintenance. Further, to meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative, the applicant would offset permanent impacts to a minimum of 0.54-acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine resources (CDFW jurisdictional resource) as outlined in MM BIO-3 in the MMRP for the Project. Lastly, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) would prepared and implemented. With the implementation of MM BIO-3 and preparation and implementation of a HMMP, the Project would have a less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-27).

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-3 USACE/CDFW/RWQCB Riverine Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant will obtain a USACE Section 404 Nation Wide Permit, RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certificate, and CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement.

The Applicant shall notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources and obtain a CDFW-executed Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement authorizing impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources associated with the Project.

The notification to CDFW should provide the following information:

1. A stream delineation including the bed, bank, and channel;

2. Linear feet and/or acreage of streams and associated natural communities that would be permanently and/or temporarily impacted by the Project. This includes impacts as a result of routine maintenance and fuel modification. Plant community names should be provided based on vegetation association and/or alliance per the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009);

3. A discussion as to whether impacts on streams within the Project site would impact those streams immediately outside of the Project site where there is hydrologic connectivity. Potential impacts such as changes to drainage pattern, runoff, and sedimentation should be discussed; and

4. A hydrological evaluation of the 100-year storm event to provide information on how water and sediment is conveyed through the Project site.

Currently, the impacted drainages and overall watershed are not within a service area of an approved mitigation bank. Depending on the timing of impacts and issuance of regulatory permits, should a mitigation bank become approved for the Whitewater River watershed, at minimum 2.67-acres of habitat creation credits from an approved bank will be purchased. However, since at this time no mitigation bank is approved for the whitewater watershed, it is assumed at minimum 2.67-acres of on-site creation is 897
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
39 required as outlined below. If it is determined that on-site mitigation is not feasible, creation of non-wetland waters at an off-site location would be required. The off-site location would be required to have a conservation easement or deed restriction placed over the mitigation area to ensure the Project site remains mitigation in perpetuity.

Additionally, whether on or off-site, the mitigation site will require long-term maintenance and management by a qualified conservancy, including payment of a nonwasting endowment to fund the long-term maintenance.

To meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative, the applicant will offset permanent impacts to a minimum of 0.54-acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine resources (CDFW jurisdictional resource) as follows including the preparation of an MSHCP DBESP.
• Permanent impacts to a minimum of 0.54-acres of jurisdictional features will be mitigated at a minimum of a 5:1 ratio (2.67 acres) through the creation of in-kind habitat on-site along the eastern and northern most Project boundary. If it is determined that on-site mitigation or off-site is not feasible, additional alternatives could include, payment into an acceptable an approved mitigation bank should one become available at the time of impacts and permitting. • A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the creation of in-kind habitat will be prepared, reviewed and approved by the City of Banning, USACE, RWQCB and CDFW.

The created habitat will be monitored by the Project proponent for a minimum of 5 years; monitoring reports shall be provided to the City of Banning and appropriate regulatory agency on an annual basis. The restoration area must meet standardized success criteria as described in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which will be required as part of the permit process and approved by the Resource Agencies. • A DBESP will be also prepared, reviewed and approved by the City of Banning and MSHCP wildlife agencies prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Impact 4.3-3 Would the Project 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? Findings:

1. Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM BIO-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the wetland impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.
898
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
40 Basis for Conclusion: The Project would result in a total of 0.18 acre of permanent impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/RWQCB jurisdictional resources. However, no wetlands are located within or adjacent to the Project site. As such, no wetlands would be impacted as a result of Project implementation (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15).

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant would obtain a CWA Section 404 permit, Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW, and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit issued by the RWQCB pursuant to the California Water Code Section 13260 as outlined in MM BIO-3, refer to the MMRP.

The Project would result in a total of 0.54 acre of permanent impacts to CDFW/MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riverine Jurisdictional Resources. However, no riparian habitat would be directly impacted by Project implementation. Currently, the impacted drainages and overall watershed are not within a service area of an approved mitigation bank. Depending on the timing of impacts and issuance of regulatory permits, should a mitigation bank become approved for the Whitewater River watershed, purchase of 2.67 acres of habitat creation credits from an approved bank will be purchased. However, since at this time no mitigation bank is approved for the Whitewater River watershed, it is assumed 2.67 acres of on-site creation is required as outlined in MM BIO-3. As a result of the impacts to jurisdictional features, two mitigation areas have been identified for the Project site. These mitigation areas will consist of two noncontiguous parcels totaling 2.67 acres (2.20 acres and 0.547 acres) on the northeast and eastern portions of the Project site. This would mitigate the impacted area through reestablishment of habitat at a ratio of 5:1. This proposed creation area would be designed to meander within the mitigation area creating a natural looking braided drainage and vegetated with alluvial fan sage scrub habitat. Further a deed restriction would be placed on all or a portion of the 2.67-acre mitigation area(s) and a HMMP would be prepared to direct the habitat restoration process for the mitigation area. This HMMP would be reviewed and approved by the relevant permitting agency or agencies (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-16).

Additionally, the Project would comply with all water quality regulations, including compliance with NPDES regulations and MS4 permit requirements. The MS4 permit places pollution prevention requirements on planned developments, construction sites, commercial and industrial businesses, municipal facilities and activities, and residential communities. Both these permits include the treatment of all surface runoff from paved and developed areas and include the implementation of BMPs during construction activities, along with installation and maintenance of structural BMPs that ensure adequate long-term treatment of water before entering any stream course or municipal system. As such, with the compliance of all applicable water quality regulations and implementation of MM BIO-3, the Project would have a less than significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-16).

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM BIO-3 above.

Impact 4.3-6 Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approve local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
899
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
41 Findings:

1. Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM BIO-3, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3 are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential MSHCP impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: The Project is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP: The Pass Plan Area and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area Cell or Cell Group. Following implementation of the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines and BMP’s the proposed action would be consistent with MSHCP goals and objectives for The Pass-Special Linkage Area (SLA). At a minimum, an MSHCP 30-day preconstruction survey will be required immediately prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. As documented above, Project implementation would be consistent with all provisions, guidelines and objectives of The SLA following implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3 (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-21).

Additionally, the Project site is not located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). However, the collection, and transfer of flows from the Project site through earthen bottom, concrete channels with dissipaters and culverts are expected to have significantly reduced natural sediment deposits to the San Gorgonio River and therefore, no new or additional downstream impacts to fluvial conditions respective of altering sediment load within the CVMSHCP is expected. Therefore, Project development would not conflict with the CVMSHCP, and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-21 through 4.3-22).

MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
The Project site occurs partially within a predetermined Survey Area for two MSHCP NEPS including Yucaipa (Marvin’s) onion and many-stemmed dudleya. No suitable habitat or clay substrates were documented on-site, and the species are not expected to occur on-site. However, to ensure MSHCP NEPS are adequately addressed, focused surveys were conducted during the Spring of 2023 and neither species was documented on-site during these surveys. As such, the Project would be consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.3 The Project site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area.

However, the Project site is located approximately 1,700 feet (0.32 mile) southwest of a regional wildlife movement corridor (San Gorgonio River). Therefore, all proposed Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines and BMPs would be implemented. As such, the Project would be consistent with MSCHP Section 6.1.4.

The Project site is not located within or adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area.

However, the Project site is located approximately 1,700 feet (0.32 mile) southwest of a regional wildlife movement corridor (San Gorgonio River).
900
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
42 Additionally, the Project would include fuel modification zones to create defensible space and reduce risks associated with wildfire. Fuel modification would be provided as needed around the perimeter of the Project site as required by RCFD and would be a minimum of 100 feet wide. At least 100 feet is provided between the perimeter of the structure and the property line allowing this minimum 100-foot fuel modification to be obtainable on property owned by the owners of the structure. Further, all portions of the 100-foot perimeter are either paved or landscaped, and any landscaping would comply with the applicable fuel modification zone requirements, as outlined in Draft EIR Section 4.14 Wildfire (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-11 through 4.15-13). Therefore, all fuels management guidelines would be implemented. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22).

Overall, the Project would be consistent with the aforementioned guidelines of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and would not conflict with the CVMSHCP. Additionally, the Project would implement MM BIO-1 through BIO-3, which would reduce potentially significant impacts and the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM BIO-1 through BIO-3 above.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.4-2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM CUL-1, and MM CUL-2 are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce potential impacts to identified historic resources from construction of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: The Project area has a low sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources, and it is unlikely that intact, subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits would be uncovered during Project construction. A previously recorded isolate in the Project area, a circa 1917 USGS survey marker designated 33-022297, was not found during the field survey that was performed on February 10 and 11, 2022, although finding this artifact was not considered a focal point of the fieldwork. Isolates such as this, or localities with fewer than three artifacts, do not constitute archaeological sites due to the lack of depositional context and thus of information potential.1 None of the six cultural resources identified during the field survey demonstrated any historical or archaeological interest. Sensitivity for encountering historic-age archaeological resources is considered low to moderate. However, the Project would still implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 to ensure that any potentially unknown archaeological resources would not be adversely affected by Project construction. As such, with implementation of MM CUL-1 and 1 CRM TECH Page 14.
901
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
43 MM CUL-2, a less than significant impact concerning archaeological resources would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-11 through 4.4-12).

Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an archaeological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist. This plan shall include a grading observation schedule, to be maintained when initial mass grading occurs in upper soils, to identify and further evaluate any cultural resources that may be discovered in the Project area. A qualified archaeologist and/or Native American monitor(s) from Consulting Tribe(s) shall be retained to attend pre-grading meetings and to monitor earth moving activities, including clearing, grubbing, cutting, and trenching at the site. The monitor(s) shall carefully inspect these areas to assess the potential for significant prehistoric or historic remains. If potential archaeological and historical resources are uncovered, the construction contractor shall cease grading operations in the vicinity of the find until further evaluation is undertaken to assess the discovery. Further subsurface investigation may be needed if the resource is determined unique or important for its prehistoric or historic information.

MM CUL-2 If archaeological remnants are discovered during monitoring, the monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert construction in order to assess the significance of the find.

Remnants shall be properly evaluated, documented, and deposited as applicable, consistent with State and local protocols.

Impact 4.5-3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries?
Findings:

1. Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM CUL-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce potential impacts to human remains from construction of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: 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 Section 7050.5 as well as PRC Section 5097 et. seq. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 902
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
44 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made by the Coroner.

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 PRC Section 5097.98. As such, MM CUL-3 would be implemented to ensure the Project is compliant with the above policies and that a qualified archaeologist would assess the significance of the find. With the implementation of MM CUL-3, the Project would have a less than significant impact on human remains (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13).

Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-3 If previously unknown cultural resources, including human remains, are identified during grading activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess the nature and significance of the find. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).

With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.6-4: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM GEO-1, are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential erosion impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: Construction activities have the potential to expose soils to short-term wind and water erosion. However, reduction of potential erosion can be accomplished through implementation of a SWPPP, which specified BMPs for temporary erosion controls. Further, the Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. The Project would also be required to follow the requirements of the NPDES permit, which contains measures to control impacts to erosion.
903
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
45 Along with all required permits and the erosion control plan verified by the City prior to initiation of any ground disturbing activity or grading permit, MM GEO-1 would ensure Project buildout would not lead to a substantial loss of topsoil or erosion through compliance with all grading guidelines and all recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Banning Commerce Center (Draft EIR, Appendix F1) prepared for the Project. Implementation of MM GEO-1 and conformance to these requirements and verification by the City as part of the development approval process would ensure that potential impacts from construction of the warehouse is less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-14 through 4.6-15).

Project operations would not involve procedures which would result in substantial soil erosion. Following construction, the Project site would be covered with hardscape and landscaping which would not contribute to erosion. Landscaping would include drought-tolerant shrubs, ground cover, and trees. The storm water basin(s) would be planted with grasses and shrubs tolerant of seasonal water inundation.

Ground cover would reduce erosion and loss of on-site soils post-construction. This would ensure that Project operation would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water bodies. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15).

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 The Project would comply with the grading guidelines and all recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project.

Impact 4.6-8: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Findings:

1. Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM GEO-2, MM GEO-3, and MM GEO-4 are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential paleontological resource impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: Unique geologic features are not common in the City of Banning or surrounding San Gorgonio Pass area. The geologic processes that formed landforms within the Project area are generally the same processes as in other parts of California.

A Paleontological Resources Assessment (PRA) was completed as part of the Project on May 20, 2024. As part of the PRA, a paleontological record search was conducted on May 28, 2024 for the Project area, with a 1-mile buffer, through the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum (LACNHM) and the Western Science Center (WSC). No paleontological resources were identified within the Project area as part of the 904
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
46 study. However, the age and composition of soils and sediments across the Project area, combined with the knowledge of paleontological resources identified within similar sediment deposits in California, indicate a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. In addition to the above records search and sensitivity review conducted by LACNHM and WSC, a review of the Riverside County Land Information System paleontological sensitivity layer was conducted for the Project area. The Project area is mapped as having Low Potential (L) for paleontological resources, though this is likely a mapping error, as the County of Riverside has identified areas with Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments as High A or High B based on documented significant Pleistocene-age fossils in the broader region. As such, based on the age and composition of the soils, a sensitivity analysis conducted by LACNHM and WSC, and guidance provided by Riverside County, the Project area retains a high sensitivity for paleontological resources.

Further, as only a very small percentage of the Project area has been subject to prior disturbance, the likelihood of intact paleontological resources, which would be considered scientifically significant if discovered, being present within the Project area and inadvertently impacted by the Project remains high.

As such, in order to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources, the Project would implement MM GEO-2 through MM GEO-4. Therefore the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-17).

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-2 The Applicant will submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City’s Community Development Director, or designee, prior to the issuance of a grading permit to reduce impacts to sensitive paleontological resources during construction activities, and all other surface-disturbance activities. The PRIMP would include the following:
▪ The PRIMP shall be prepared by a Qualified Paleontologist, based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines, and meet all regulatory requirements. The qualified paleontologist shall have a Master’s Degree or Ph.D. in paleontology, shall have knowledge of the local paleontology, and shall be familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.
▪ The PRIMP shall include a site-specific investigation that will identify construction impact areas of ranging sensibility and approximate depths at which those resources are likely to be encountered. The Plan shall define monitoring procedures and methodology, and shall specify that sediments of undetermined sensitivity shall be monitored on a part-time basis (as determined by the Qualified Paleontologist). ▪ The PRIMP shall state which resources will be avoided and which shall be recovered for their data potential. Where possible, recovery is preferred over avoidance in order to mitigate the potential for looting of paleontological resources. The Plan shall also detail methods of recovery, preparation and analysis of specimens, final curation of specimens at a federally accredited repository, data analysis, and reporting.

MM GEO-3 A qualified paleontologist will attend preconstruction meetings to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning planned depths, excavation schedules, 905
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
47 paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. In addition, all on-site construction personnel will receive Worker Education and Awareness Program (WEAP) training prior to the commencement of excavation work. All ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction occurring within previously undisturbed fossil bearing formations will be monitored by a qualified paleontologist or qualified paleontological monitor. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials and works under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) will recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time; however, some fossil specimens, such as a complete large mammal skeleton, may require an extended salvage period. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) will be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on-site.

MM GEO-4 Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the program will be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and catalogued.

Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, will be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections located within Riverside County (or, if no repository is available, adjacent Counties). A final data recovery report will be completed that outlines the results on the paleontological monitoring program. This report will include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. The report will be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, or designee, upon completion.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.13-1: 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 California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) 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 (ii) 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American tribe.

Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3 and MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-8 are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential tribal cultural impacts of the Project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), 906
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
48 changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: Project-related construction activities could potentially uncover Native American historical or archaeological resources. However, 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.

On October 13, 2021, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California NAHC for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC states in a letter dated November 19, 2021, that the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search did not return any information of Native American cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the Project.

The Planning Department notified the following California Native American Tribes per the requirements of AB 52 on September 14, 2022, to initiate Tribal Consultation. The following tribes were contacted for consultation: Cahuilla Band of Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians, Serrano Nation of Indians, and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN). During the 30-day consultation period, only the YSMN responded. YSMN sent a response by email on October 11, 2022. YSMN indicated that the Project was located outside of their ancestral territory and did not wish to consult. MBMI provided a response after the 30-day consultation period on September 3, 2023. MBMI requested a formal consultation and provided mitigation measures they wished to have included as part of consultation. While consultation with MBMI fell outside the 30-day consultation period, the City wished to maintain good faith relations with the MBMI and as such, MBMI requested that mitigation measures are included as part of the Draft EIR.

To ensure that any potential tribal cultural resources would not be adversely affected during Project construction, MBMI requested that Project developer retain a Tribal Monitor during ground disturbing activities and that the developer would initiate a Native American Treatment Agreement (MM TCR-1).

Additionally, the City of Banning through continued good-faith consultation with several Tribal Governments have established a suite of mitigation measures to be implemented in Projects that may have the opportunity to impact tribal cultural resources, which includes tribal monitoring. These mitigation measures, including those provided by MBMI, are provided below as MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-8 (Draft EIR p. 4.13-10 through 4.13-11). Therefore, with the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MMs CUL-1 through CUL-3.

MM TCR-1 Native American Treatment 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 grounddisturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush 907
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
49 removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the grounddisturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

MM TCR-2 Retention of Archaeologist: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post replacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind) and prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI). The archaeologist shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources.

The archaeologist will conduct a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribe[s] Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and/or designated Tribal Representative. The training session will focus on what the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event.

MM TCR-3 Cultural Resource Management Plan: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities the project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the consulting Tribe[s] and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the project schedule.

MM TCR-4 Pre-Grade Meeting: The retained qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe[s] representative shall attend the pre-grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan
MM TCR-5 On-site Monitoring: During all ground-disturbing activities the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be on-site full-time. The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Archaeological and Native American monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

MM TCR-6 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the 908
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
50 evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.

If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within 60-feet of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s].

The archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery.

The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the consulting Tribe[s] and the Native American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the Tribal Cultural Resource’s treatment and disposition shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Native American monitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Below are the possible treatment and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQAs preference:
▪ Full avoidance.
▪ If avoidance is not feasible, Prevention in place.
▪ If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.
▪ If all other options have been proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and curated in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (CFR s79.1).

MM TCR-7 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains: The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe[s].

Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground-disturbing activities (i.e., 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), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within 100-feet of the discovery. The area shall be protected, project personnel/observers restricted. The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to come to his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.

In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC Section 7050.5. 909
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
51 The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make their recommendation for final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.

If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians has been named the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance 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 Section 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations will be determined by the Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the landowner, and the City Planning Department.

MM TCR-8 Final Report: The final report[s] created as a part of the project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment. After approval from all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe[s].

WILDFIRE
Impact 4.15-3: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project 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?
Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM FIRE-1, isfeasible, is adopted, and will reduce potential fire hazard impacts of the Project to lessthan-significant levels. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant sensitive receptor impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR.

Basis for Conclusion: Currently, the Project site is composed of vacant land, and does not contain special infrastructure such as fuel breaks or emergency water sources. Construction and operation of the Project would not increase the risk of fire, nor would it require the installation/maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. The Project would include improvements to adjacent roadways that would serve to provide emergency ingress and egress to the Project site in the event of an emergency.

Additionally, vegetation management shall be performed pursuant to the Project’s Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prior to the start of work and prior to import of combustible construction materials. Adequate fuel breaks shall be created around all grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where there is flammable vegetation. Landscape planting would not utilize prohibited plants that have been found to be highly flammable. To ensure that the Project reduces fire risk, the Project would implement MM FIRE-1, which requires compliance with all Fire Safety Requirements as identified in the FPP prepared 910
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
52 for the Project. With the combination of adherence to relevant fire and building codes and implementation of the Project Design Features (PDFs), and mitigation measures, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-21).

Mitigation Measures
MM FIRE-1 Fire Safety Requirements. The Project shall be required to comply with all Fire Safety Requirements as identified in Section 5 of the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the Project (Appendix M1). Conformance with these requirements shall be verified by the City of Banning Community Development Department during design review prior to the issuance of building and grading permits.

5.3 EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION The City of Banning having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, Technical Appendices and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, makes infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and therefore, the Project would cause significant and unavoidable impacts to the categories of:

AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Basis for Conclusion: To determine the Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the Project must demonstrate that:

1. The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP

2. The Project will not exceed assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the years of the Project buildout phase.

The Project would be consistent with the second criterion, as the proposed industrial development and uses are consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation for the Project site of Business Park, which allows for light industrial manufacturing and office/warehouse buildings (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16).

However, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion. The Project would not exceed construction emission standards with implementation of MM AQ-1, which ensures the Project utilizes “Super Compliant” low volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints; however, the Project’s operational emissions would exceed the operational standard for nitrogen oxides (NOx)of 55 pounds per day and would remain above the SCAQMD threshold. Further, unmitigated reactive organic gas (ROG) operational emissions would be 83.6 pounds per day, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 55 pounds per day. With implementation of mitigation measures, identified below, operational ROG emissions would be reduced to 54.6 pounds per day. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 would reduce operational emissions to the greatest 911
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
53 amount feasible; however, implementation would not reduce operational emissions enough to be below threshold, as shown in Draft EIR, Table 4.2-9. Since the Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emissions thresholds, even with mitigation implemented, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. No feasible mitigation measures are available which would reduce impacts to the SCAQMD AQMP to less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17).

Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

While the Project would not reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the Project would still be required to comply with applicable plans, programs, and policies (PPP) based on local, state, or federal requirements that are frequently independent of CEQA review and typically include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional requirements during the approval process, as appropriate. Because PPPs are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be either project design features or mitigation measures. The Project would comply with the PPPs listed below (Draft EIR, p. 4-2-17).

The Project has incorporated all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, and would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to air quality. As previously mentioned, the Project would adhere to all applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations relating to GHG emissions. However, despite compliance with applicable state, federal, and local regulation governing GHG emissions and implementation of feasible mitigation measures the Project will still result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to Project and cumulative GHG emissions.

PPP-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with SCAQMD’s Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates.

The measures include, but are not limited to the following:

PPP-1a Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.

PPP-1b All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.

PPP-1c All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

PPP-1d The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
912
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
54 PPP-1e Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

In addition, for projects greater than 50 acres, additional requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

PPP-1f Maintain a daily record of specific dust control actions taken and maintain records for a minimum of three years.

PPP-1g Install signage with contact information.

PPP-1h Identify a dust control supervisor.

PPP-2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.

PPP-3 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

PPP-4 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CRR, Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (Section 110.10) requires buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

PPP-5 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable CALGreen Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

PPP-5a Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 4.303 (residential) and Section 5.303 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

PPP-5b Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 4.408.1 (residential) and Section 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
913
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
55 PPP-5c Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 4.410 (residential) and Section 5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

PPP-5d To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

PPP-6 The Project tenants shall comply with the SCAQMD Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). This rule is expected to reduce NOx and PM10 emission during construction and operation.

Emission reductions resulting from this rule were not included in the Project analysis.

Compliance with Rule 2305 is enforced by the SCAQMD through their reporting process and is required for all warehouse projects greater than 100,000 sf.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
▪ All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints. ▪ Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints. ▪ Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
▪ For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
▪ Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. ▪ Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions. ▪ Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable. ▪ Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.
914
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
56 MM AQ-2 Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the tenant/facility operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
▪ Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options. ▪ Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day.
▪ Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride-matching service.
▪ Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential carpool/vanpool parking or others.
▪ Each building shall provide preferred parking for electric, low-emitting and fuelefficient vehicles equivalent to at least eight percent of the required number of parking spaces.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant occupancy and not the building shell approvals.

MM AQ-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Shell Design, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
▪ The Project buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.
▪ Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electricpowered engines.

This mitigation measures applies only to building shell approvals and not the tenant improvements.

MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that all truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
▪ Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. ▪ Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after two minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). 915
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
57 Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
▪ Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations. ▪ Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the importance of being a good neighbor by not parking in residential areas.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications shall include requirements (by contract specifications) that vendor trucks for the industrial buildings include 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. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM AQ-6 The Project shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment.

Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show that all outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6 are feasible, have been adopted, and will reduce, but not eliminate, potential air quality impacts from operations of the Project. Although the Project’s long-term influence will be consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP second criterion, the Project’s exceedance of operation ROG and NOx thresholds will potentially result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet state and federal air quality standards. Although construction emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, impacts associated with AQMP compliance will be significant and unavoidable due to Project implementation. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant air quality impacts from the proposed Project identified in the FEIR.

However, even with compliance with all applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures noted above, the Project will still have a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP through the exceedance of operational ROG and NOx thresholds. All reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been adopted for the Project, and there are no feasible alternatives to avoid the identified unavoidable significant impact (see Section 5.4, Alternatives to the Project of these Findings). Therefore, the Council also adopts 916
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
58 CEQA Finding 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)). Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California PRC, as described in the SOC, the Council has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified air quality impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Findings Section 6.0).

Impact 4.2-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Basis for Conclusion: As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2-8, construction of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for the O3 precursors ROG (VOC) (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-22). However, implementation of MM AQ-1 would require the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints to reduce ROG emissions from to less than significant levels, from 109.73 pounds per day to 33.7 pounds per day, which is under the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day. As such, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in regard to construction (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-21).

The Project would implement MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 to reduce operational emissions to the greatest extent feasible, reducing ROG emissions from 83.6 pounds per day to 54.6 pounds per day, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 55 pounds per day; however, Project operations would still exceed SCAQMD emissions thresholds for NOx, even with mitigation incorporated. Emissions from motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards and the Project would have no control over these standards.

The Project would comply with PPP-3 requiring diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449 (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-22).

The Project operator would directly reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities in accordance with Rule 2305. Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby. Furthermore, warehouse owners and operators are required to earn Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points each year. WAIRE points are a menu-based system earned by emission reduction measures. Warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. WAIRE points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, Near-Zero Emissions and/or Zero-Emissions on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure, or other options.

A preliminary WAIRE calculation has been conducted for the Project. The Project would include five zeroemission yard trucks that would operate for approximately eight hours per day, 365 days per year. Based on the SCAQMD WAIRE User Calculator the Project would have a Warehouse Points Compliance Obligation (WPCO) of 927.1 and would earn 5,133.6 points. As a result, the Project more than fulfills its WPCO and would bank 4,206.5 points. However, based on a preliminary WAIRE calculation estimated for the Project, Project operational emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD threshold despite implementing mitigation measures. Operational NOX impacts associated with mobile sources would 917
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
59 remain significant, no additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce mobile NOX emission impacts to less than significant. Project impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-23 through 4.2-24).

As previously mentioned, the Project would adhere to all applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations relating to criteria pollutant emissions. The Project would implement MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6 and to reduce Project criteria pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. However, despite compliance with applicable state, federal, and local regulation governing GHG emissions and implementation of feasible mitigation measures the Project will still result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to Project criteria pollutants.

Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6 are feasible, have been adopted, and will reduce, but not eliminate, potential air quality impacts from operations of the Project. Despite implementation of mitigation measures, the Project’s operational emissions will remain above SCAQMD thresholds for NOx resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant air quality impacts from the Project identified in the FEIR. Additionally, the SCAQMD and CARB have the purview and authority to regulate criteria air pollutants and thus, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 2 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)).

However, even with compliance with all applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures noted above, the Project will still have a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions through the exceedance of operational ROG and NOx thresholds. All reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been adopted for the Project, and there are no feasible alternatives to avoid the identified unavoidable significant impact (see Section 5.4, Alternatives to the Project of these Findings). Therefore, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)). Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California PRC, as described in the SOC, the Council has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified air quality impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Findings Section 6.0).

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-1 to MM AQ-6 above.

Cumulative Impacts: In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions, the SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds. As discussed above, the Project’s operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds, causing a significant and unavoidable impact. As such, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-31). 918
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
60 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 4.7-1: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Basis for Conclusion: GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Draft EIR, Table 4.7-3.

Total area and indirect sources would be reduced with mitigation from 6,471 MTCO2e to 2,392 MTCO2e.

However, the Project’s mitigated emissions for mobile sources would be approximately 27,048 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations for mobile sources. Even with mitigation, Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. The majority of the GHG emissions (76 percent of unmitigated emissions and 86 percent of mitigated emissions) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.

MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-5 would reduce GHG emissions associated with Project development.

MM GHG-1 would require the installation of solar PV panels or the acquisition of energy from renewable sources. MM GHG-2 would require the Project to provide “EV ready” employee parking stalls. MM GHG-3 would mandate diverting at least 75 percent of landfill waste produced. MM GHG-4 would require 100 percent electric landscaping equipment, and MM GHG-5 would require electrical hookups for future electric trucks and trucks with auxiliary equipment. Additionally, implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, located in Section 4.2: Air Quality, would reduce the Project’s operational emissions through appropriate signage for on-site circulation, limiting idling emissions, and utilizing all-electric cargo handling equipment
As previously discussed, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305 which would directly reduce emissions or to otherwise facilitate emissions reduction. Warehouse operators can also choose to pay a mitigation fee, where the funds would be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in neighboring communities. Additionally, warehouse owners and operators would be required to earn WAIRE points each year. WAIRE points are a menu-based system earned by emission reduction measures. Warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. WAIRE points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, Near-Zero Emissions and/or Zero-Emissions on road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zeroemission charging and fueling infrastructure, or other options.

A preliminary WAIRE calculation has been conducted for the Project. The Project would include approximately five zero emission yard trucks. Based on the SCAQMD WAIRE User Calculator, with implementation of LOR-5, the Project would have a WPCO of 927 and would earn 5,134 points. As a result, the Project more than fulfills its WPCO and would bank 4,207 points.

As demonstrated in Draft EIR, Table 4.7-3, mitigation measures would reduce Project GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent; however, total mitigated emissions would continue to exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City to address emissions resulting from trucks, cars, and/or emissions generated by trucks outside of the City’s limits. As with all land use projects, the Project’s mobile 919
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
61 and transportation related GHG emissions are a function of two parameters: emissions control technology and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). CARB is directly responsible for regulating mobile and transportation source emissions in the State. The State is also implementing legislation and regulations to address the second parameter affecting transportation related GHG emissions by controlling for VMT. However, the state has determined that VMT regulations are not applicable to heavy trucks, such as those that will utilize the Project and generate the majority of the Project’s GHG emissions.

As such, the City of Banning has no regulatory control over emissions control technology and therefore has limited ability to control or mitigate emissions associated with vehicle emissions associated with this Project. Additional mitigation to further reduce the Project’s non-mobile emissions is also not feasible.

The Project’s mitigation measures and laws, ordinances, and regulations (LORs) address non-mobile emissions to the extent possible, by requiring on-site renewable energy (MM GHG-1), requiring the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards (MM GHG-2), diverting 75 percent landfill waste (MM GHG-3), requiring 100 percent electric landscape equipment (MM GHG-4), and requiring electric hookups for future electric trucks (MM GHG-5). Additionally, the City has no enforcement authority over offset credits that fund carbon reduction projects outside of the City. Therefore, the use of carbon offsets has not been considered for the Project as a conservative measure.

Existing requirements based on local, State, and federal laws and regulations are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, CalGreen Code, local municipal code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. Laws, orders, and regulations (LORs) are neither Project specific nor a result of Project development and are therefore not considered to be project design features or MMs. The Project would comply with the following LORs:

LOR-1 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.

LOR-2 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, §2449.

LOR-3 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (§110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

LOR-4 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall 920
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
62 ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
▪ Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with §4.303 (residential) and §5.303 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with §4.408.1 (residential) and §5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11. ▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with §4.410 (residential) and §5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11. ▪ To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with §5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

LOR-5 The Project tenants shall comply with the SCAQMD Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). This rule is expected to reduce NOX and PM10 emissions during construction and operation.

Emission reductions resulting from this rule were not included in the Project analysis.

Compliance with Rule 2305 is enforced by the SCAQMD through their reporting process and is required for all warehouse projects greater than 100,000 square feet.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 above.

MM GHG-1 Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Project shall be required to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system or otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, sufficient to power the anticipated initial improvements for the warehouse (i.e., the Title 24 electricity demand and the plug-load.

The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE).

SCE’s Rule 21 governs operating and metering requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s distribution system. Should SCE limit the off-site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy storage system (BESS) to lower off-site export while maintaining on-site renewable generation to off-set consumption. The building shall include an electrical system and other infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage.

In addition, to ensure that the Project’s electrical room(s) is sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either (1) a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or (2) the primary electrical room shall be sized 25 percent larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with 25 percent excess demand capacity.
921
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
63 MM GHG-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Banning demonstrating that the Project is designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards or meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.

MM GHG-3 The development shall divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of tenant occupancy permits, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with County standards for Recyclable Collection and Loading Areas, and the facility’s operator shall be required to provide the City with a copy of the Project’s recycling program. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

MM GHG-4 Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used on-site shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

MM GHG-5 Conduits for the installation of electrical hookups to allow future electric vehicle (EV) trucks and trucks with auxiliary power units (APU) shall be installed at a ratio of one charging station for every 50 dock high doors.

Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-5 are feasible, have been adopted, and will reduce, but not eliminate, potential air quality impacts from operations of the Project. Despite implementation of mitigation measures, the Project’ GHG emissions would remain above the SCAQMD thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant air quality impacts from the proposed Project identified in the FEIR. Additionally, the SCAQMD and CARM have the purview and authority to regulate GHG emissions from mobile sources and thus, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 2 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)).

However, even with compliance with all applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures noted above, the Project will still have a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to Project and cumulative GHG emissions. All reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been adopted for the Project, and there are no feasible alternatives to avoid the identified unavoidable significant impact (see Section 5.4, Alternatives to the Project of these Findings). Therefore, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)).

Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California PRC, as described in the SOC, the Council has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified GHG impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Findings Section 6.0).

Impact 4.7-2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
922
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
64 Basis for Conclusion: As demonstrated in Draft EIR Table 4.7-4, the Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the SCAG RTP/SCS and would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets. Additionally, Draft EIR Table 4.7-3 indicates that 90 percent of the Project’s mitigated GHG emissions are from mobile sources, which would be further reduced by the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan measures for GHG emissions reductions and associated strategies. The City has no control over mobile emissions, and these emissions would decline in the future due to measures discussed above, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. Statewide GHG emissions reduction strategies in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) buses and trucks. Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project. Although these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or state efforts to improve system efficiency. As such, the Project would not interfere with their implementation (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-25 through 4.7-28).

Despite plan consistency, the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 located in Section 4.2: Air Quality, and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-5; thus, the Project could impede California’s Statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would occur as a result of the Project.

Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-5 are feasible, have been adopted, and will reduce, but not eliminate, potential air quality impacts from operations of the Project. Despite implementation of mitigation measures, the Project’s GHG emissions would conflict with the City’s emissions thresholds. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant air quality impacts from the proposed Project identified in the FEIR. Additionally, the SCAQMD and CARB have the purview and authority to regulate GHG emissions from mobile sources and thus, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 2 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)).

However, even with compliance with all applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures noted above, the Project will still have a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to Project and cumulative GHG emissions. All reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been adopted for the Project, and there are no feasible alternatives to avoid the identified unavoidable significant impact (see Section 5.4, Alternatives to the Project of these Findings). Therefore, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)).

Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California PRC, as described in the SOC, the Council has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the 923
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
65 alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified GHG impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Findings Section 6.0).

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-5 above.

Cumulative Impacts: GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of one year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe. It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. The State CEQA Guidelines generally address GHG emissions as a cumulative impact because of the global nature of climate change. As such, GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no noncumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Projectrelated GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. In addition, the Project as well as other cumulative related projects would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. As discussed above, the Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance despite implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 from the Air Quality Assessment and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-5 and could impede statewide 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. As such, the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact.

TRANSPORTATION
Impact 4.12-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Basis for Conclusion: To comply with CEQA, the City adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Local Transportation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (City Guidelines). The City Guidelines documents the City’s VMT analysis methodology and adopted VMT impact thresholds.

VMT Screening
Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that meet certain screening criteria based on their location, land use, or other attributes may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. As the City has not developed their own City VMT screening tool, the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool) was alternatively used to aid in the screening process and offers screening attributes consistent with the screening criteria listed in the City Guidelines. The following screening criteria for land development projects were selected for further evaluation based on their applicability to the Project:
• Proximity to Transit
• Low VMT Area
• Small/Low Trip Generating Projects
924
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
66 Land development projects that have one or more of the following attributes may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

Proximity to Transit
According to City Guidelines, projects that meet the following criteria may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact:
• Located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”), • Consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning,
• Have a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) greater than 0.75
• Projects that provide parking less than or equal to the City’s Municipal Code requirements, • And projects that do not replace any affordable residential units with 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, and TPA screening criteria is not met.

Low VMT Area
As noted in the City Guidelines, “Projects located in areas with low VMT will be eligible to be screened out as long as they are consistent with the City’s General Plan.” The City recognizes any net increase in VMT per employee for uses consistent with General Plan Guidelines as exceeding the threshold for Low VMT.

The Screening Tool is used to determine if a Project is in a low VMT Area. It uses the sub-regional Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the region. First, the Project’s physical location is identified on the map, then the Screening Tool provides VMT data for the TAZ in which the project resides to determine existing VMT for that zone.

The Project was located and selected by parcel location. The Screening Tool was then run for productionattraction (PA) VMT per employee. The Project TAZ 41 was shown to generate 26.9 VMT per employee, which is below the WRCOG regional average 30.4 VMT per employee for industrial land uses.

The Project was determined to be located in a low VMT area. However, after further examination of the Project’s TAZ within the RIVCOM model it was determined that the Project’s TAZ contained mostly agricultural use types, which is not consistent with the proposed industrial land use of the Project.

Therefore, the Project does not qualify for this screening criteria and the Low VMT screening criteria is not met.

Small/Low Trip Generating Projects
The City Guidelines recognizes those projects generating fewer than 1,000 daily vehicle trips to result in a less than significant VMT impact. The Project is estimated to generate 5,384 daily vehicle trips, exceeding the City’s 1,000 daily vehicle trip threshold for projects consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations. Therefore, the Project type screening criteria is not met. 925
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
67 VMT Analysis
VMT Metric and Significance Threshold
According to the City Guidelines, the appropriate efficiency metric used to measure VMT for purposes of determining a potential transportation impact for non-residential land use projects in the City is VMT per employee. In addition, the City Guidelines have identified the following impact threshold:
• For other land uses (for example, industrial, manufacturing, etc.), any net increase in VMT per employee (for the WRCOG regional average) would indicate a significant impact for uses consistent with the General Plan.

The WRCOG regional threshold was calculated using WRCOG’s latest RIVCOM model version 3.5. Results from this calculation yielded the same base year results of 30.4 VMT per employee for the WRCOG regional average.

Project’s VMT Calculation and Comparison to Impact Threshold Draft EIR, Table 4.12-4 show the Project-generated VMT per employe for home-based work and Table 4.12-5 providesthe comparison of the Project’s anticipated VMT generation to the City’s threshold; Project generated VMT per employee was estimated as 33.3 while the City’s threshold is 30.4. As such, the Project would exceed the City threshold and the Project’s VMT impact is considered significant.

Upon completion of the VMT Screening and Analysis, Project was not found to meet any available screening criteria, the Project’s VMT analysis was found to exceed the City’s VMT per employee threshold by 9.5 percent, and implementation of feasible VMT reduction measures would not definitively reduce Project VMT or Project VMT impacts. Reductions in commute VMT through feasible reduction measures such as those described below would be provided by the Project and would be implemented as part of future Certificates of Occupancy for future tenants as noted in MM TRANS-1. However, even with implementation of the potential VMT reduction measures and MM TRANS-1, the Project VMT impact is assumed to exceed the City VMT threshold. Potential commute trip reduction strategies have been considered for the purposes of reducing Project related VMT impacts (i.e., commute trips) determined to be significant. As the future building tenants are not known for the Project, the effectiveness of each commute trip reduction measures cannot be known at this time. The Project can, however, consider the following measures that have the potential to reduce work/commute VMT, although no quantified benefit can be taken at this time. The Project VMT impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1 Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for future tenants, the future tenant shall demonstrate implementation of reasonable and feasible VMT reduction measures to the satisfaction of the City of Banning Planning Director. Measures to be considered include, but are not limited to VMT strategy reduction measures:

Potential VMT Reduction Strategies
The following are potential VMT reduction measures that could be implemented:
926
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
68 ▪ The Project may implement a Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) measure. The purpose of the CTR would be to encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, which would reduce VMT. A proposed CTR program for this Project could include providing on-site and/or online commute information services including information on available transit and ride coordination for employees. ▪ The Project could provide designated carpool/vanpool parking in desirable locations on-site, which could encourage employees to carpool/vanpool to work and reduce VMT.
▪ The Project could install end-of-trip facilities such as bicycle parking and lockers which could encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation and thus reduce VMT.
▪ The Project could increase sidewalks along the Project frontage and provide connections to existing trails (if applicable) in order to improve pedestrian access. This measure could encourage employees to walk to nearby destinations and thus reduce VMT.
▪ The Project could implement employee parking cash-out policies. Cash-out is when employers provide employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking, provided by the employer, in lieu of a cash payment equivalent to or greater than the cost of the parking space. This encourages employees to use other modes of travel instead of single occupancy vehicles.

Findings: The Council adopts CEQA Finding 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The Council finds that MM TRANS-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce, but not eliminate, potential traffic impacts from operations of the Project. Despite the implementation of mitigation measures, Project will still exceed the City’s VMT thresholds. Accordingly, the Council finds that, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant air quality impacts from the proposed Project identified in the FEIR.

Impacts associated with VMT were calculated pursuant to the City Guidelines. However, variables considered as part of the VMT analysis are not City or Project specific. Nor are the impacts attributable only to the Project, as VMT impacts are a regionwide issue. Therefore, the City, as lead agency, does not hold sole responsibility for the impacts. VMT impacts are not borne by one agency alone (the City), but by a multitude of local, regional, and state agencies who are working together collectively to address impacts associated with VMT. Therefore, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 2 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)).

However, even with compliance with all applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures noted above, the Project will still have a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to Project traffic impacts. All reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been adopted for the Project, and there are no feasible alternatives to avoid the identified unavoidable significant impact (see Section 5.4, Alternatives to the Project of these Findings). Therefore, the Council also adopts CEQA Finding 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)). Pursuant to Section 927
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
69 21081(a)(3) of the California PRC, as described in the SOC, the Council has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified air quality impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Findings Section 6.0).

Cumulative Impacts: The Project’s VMT analysis provides an analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on VMT. The VMT analysis concludes that Citywide VMT increases with the Project resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT impact. Even with implementation of reasonable and feasible VMT reduction measures, the VMT analysis concludes that Citywide VMT increases from the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT impact.

5.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR analyzes the following three (3) alternatives to the Project as proposed, and evaluates these alternatives for their ability to meet the Project’s goals and objectives. CEQA requires the EIR to include in its evaluation a No Project Alternative. Additionally, CEQA requires the EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which would feasibly attain the basic Project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the identified significant impacts.

Alternatives considered within this analysis include:
• No Project Alternative (No Warehouse Development or Off-Site Improvements) • Reduced Building Intensity
• Two Building Alternative
A fourth alternative, the Alternative Site Alternative, was considered but rejected. While it is feasible that an alternative site could be selected for the Project, an alternative site would entail either the same or new significant environmental effects when compared to the Project. Furthermore, viable alternative locations for the Project are limited to those that would feasibly attain most of the Project objectives.

There are no other properties of sufficient size and owned or reasonably acquired by the Project applicant that are located in the City, and along a major transportation corridor that would satisfy the Project objectives and eliminate or reduce impacts from the Project. It should be noted that comments on the Draft EIR did not identify any other alternatives requested for consideration.

The analysis included in the Draft EIR describes each alternative, analyzes the impacts of the alternative as compared to the Project, identifies significant impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative, assesses the alternative’s ability to meet most of the Project objectives, and evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the Project. In making the following findings relating to Project alternatives, the City certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information included in the Draft EIR.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts of the Project
Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of the Draft EIR address the environmental impacts of implementation of the Project. The analyses contained in these sections identified the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the Project:
928
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
70 Air Quality. The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: (1) conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, due to operational emissions; (2) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the region is non-attainment, due operational emissions; and (3) although localized impacts would be less than significant for both Project-related construction and operational emissions, a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact would occur due to regional criteria pollutant emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts, despite the implementation of feasible mitigation measures:
(1) generation of 22,969 MTCO2e per year (mitigated) of GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment, 76 percent of which are from mobile sources which are subject to State and Federal standards and therefore cannot be reduced by the Project; (2) the Project would conflict with applicable policies, plans, or regulations reducing emissions of greenhouse gas emissions; and (3) the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG emissions impact.

Transportation. The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable transportation impacts: (1) The Project would exceed the City’s VMT per employee threshold by 9.5 percent, and (2) result in a Citywide cumulative VMT impact that would not be able to be definitively reduce by proposed VMT reduction mitigation measures.

Alternative 1 No Project Alternative (No Warehouse Development or Off-Site Improvements) Findings: The No Project/No Build Alternative allows decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the Project with impacts of not approving the Project by leaving the Project site in its existing condition with the existing development. No development would occur under this alternative. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5). Alternative 1 would avoid all potential significant impacts that could occur from Project construction and operation as, by definition, it assumes that no development would occur and therefore no grading, construction or operational traffic and related impacts such as air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation would occur. The lack of significant impacts associated with Alternative 1 would also remove the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Project implementation.

All impact areas which were anticipated to result in a less than significant impact, less than significant with mitigation measures, or a significant and unavoidable impact due to implementation of the Project would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative. The No Project Build Alternative would avoid all potential significant impacts and significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur from Project construction and operation. The lack of significant impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would fail to meet any of the Project objectives, as the Project site would remain in its current state of development (Draft EIR, p. 6-10).

Aesthetics. Under the No Project, the Project site would remain in its vacant and undeveloped state.

However, as previously discussed, the land use designation and zoning for the Project site is Business Park, and as such, those uses could be developed on the Project site in the future. Until such time though, this Alternative assumes that the Project site would remain in its current undeveloped state. Therefore, under 929
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
71 this Alternative, there would be no impacts regarding aesthetics, light, and glare and would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-6).

Air Quality. Significant and Unavoidable impacts to air quality were anticipated to occur with Project development with respect to the Project’s ability to comply with established air quality plans for the region and pollution generation. The No Project Alternative would result in no construction or operational emissions from the Project as it would not be developed and would presumably continue the existing uses (vacant land) in the Project site. The continued use of the Project site in its current state would lead to no change in anticipated emissions and would therefore remain at the current level of emissions generated.

Therefore, under this Alternative, there would be no impact regarding air quality; this alternative would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-6).

Biological Resources. The Project would result in a less than significant environmental impacts to specialstatus species, riparian habitats, and wetlands with mitigation measures implemented. Under this Alternative, none of the Project’s impacts would occur, and no habitat modification would occur.

Therefore, under this Alternative, there would be no impact regarding biological resources as no habitat, or plant or wildlife species would be impacted. Impacts would be reduced compared to the Project. This alternative is environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-6).

Cultural Resources. The Project would result in less than significant impact to archeological resources and human remains with mitigation incorporated. Under the No Project Alternative, these potential Project impacts would be avoided, as no ground disturbing activities would occur. This Alternative would also avoid the Project’s potential for disturbing human remains, which is concluded to be less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework as outlined in MM CUL-3. Therefore, under this Alternative, there would be no impact regarding cultural resources; this alternative is environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-6).

Energy. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be developed. The Project site is currently undeveloped, and as such, would not require or consume energy. Therefore, when compared to the Project, no energy impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would occur. Therefore, under this Alternative, impacts regarding energy would be less than that of the Project. This alternative is environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-6).

Geology and Soils. The Project would result in a less than significant impact regarding the loss of topsoil, strong seismic activity, development on an unstable soil, and paleontological resources with mitigation measures implemented. Mitigation measures apply to the inadvertent find of previously unknown paleontological resources. However, under the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact regarding geology and soils; reduced compared to the Project. While there is a low likelihood of Project construction having the potential to impact unknown paleontological resources, mitigation would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts as described would be fully avoided, with the exception being located in an area of strong seismic ground shaking. The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding geological, soils, and paleontological resources. The exposure of people to seismic, geologic, and soil hazards under the No 930
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
72 Project Alternative would be non-existent as there would be no development under this alternative, whereas the Project would expose people and structures to geologic hazards (Draft EIR, p. 6-7).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impacts were associated with the potential to generate harmful emissions at levels that would exceed established thresholds and conflict with GHG regulations. The Project would exceed the City’s allowable threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.

The primary source of the Project’s MTCO2e emissions would stem from mobile source emissions.

Although mitigation is proposed to minimize the potential emissions impacts associated with Project implementation, emissions are still anticipated to exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e maximum threshold.

Because emissions are anticipated to exceed allowable levels, the Project’s emissions would also conflict with air quality goals in a manner that would be significant and unavoidable. The No Project Alternative would result in no operations emissions as a result of the Project since the Project would not be developed in this Alternative and would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project. Under existing conditions, no emissions occur. Therefore, under this Alternative, impacts regarding GHG would be less than the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-7).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Associated Project impacts to hazards including 1) increased safety risk to workers due to the transport, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste 2) foreseeable or accidental release of hazardous materials 3) emissions of hazardous emissions to nearby schools 4) location on Cortese List of known hazardous material sites and 5) location near a nearby airport would all be mitigated to a less than significant level. Under the No Project Alternative, all Project impacts would be avoided since short-term construction and long-term operations associated with the Project would not be implemented. No warehouse, landscape improvements, and other associated on-site and off-site improvements would occur which would eliminate any potential for release of hazardous materials offsite. Therefore, the “No Project” Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding hazards and hazardous materials, since no ground disturbing activities would occur, and no buildings or structures would be constructed or operated. Therefore, under this Alternative, impacts regarding hazards would be less than the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-7 to 6-8).

Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Project Alternative would eliminate both short-term and long-term impacts to water quality, since there would be no grading, excavation, or construction activities associated with the Project. This Alternative would not alter or substantially change current hydrologic conditions compared to the development of the Project, nor increase the rate of stormwater runoff that would adversely affect the water quality. This Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding hydrology and water quality, since no increase in stormwater capacity would occur, impervious surfaces would not increase, and land uses would not be added. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative, impacts regarding hydrology and water quality would be less than the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-8).

Noise. The Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce excess noise levels from construction machinery, demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction, as well as operational noise. Additionally, the Project would have less than significant impacts regarding vibration from construction or operational uses largely in part due to the Project’s distance to existing structures or 931
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
73 sensitive receptors. Further, the activities to occur on-site would not require operations that would produce large amounts of vibration. Under the No Project Alternative on-site noise levels would be eliminated since no short-term construction activity or Project operations would occur. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding noise and vibration during short-term construction activity (Draft EIR, p. 6-8).

Public Services. Under the No Project Alternative, no warehouse or associated improvements would be developed, and no employment activity or visitors would be generated resulting in the need for fire or police services. In addition, no Development Impact Fees would be paid to the City for various City services. Although the Project’s impacts related to fire and police services were determined to be less than significant, the public services impacts would be reduced under this alternative compared to the Project. The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-8).

Transportation. Under No Project Alternative, no new employees or industrial warehouse uses would be introduced on the Project site, and existing VMT would be maintained. Therefore, there would be no impacts under this Alternative, and the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts that would occur from the Project would be avoided. Impacts under this alternative would be less compared to the Project. The No Project Alternative is environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-9).

Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project would require mitigation measures, including on-site monitoring during ground disturbance, to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. The No Project Alternative would not involve the construction of uses that could potentially disturb tribal cultural resources.

Therefore, under this Alternative, impacts regarding tribal cultural resources would be reduced compared to the Project. The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-9).

Utilities and Service Systems. The No Project Alternative would avoid the Project’s temporary increased demand upon utilities and service systems during construction and permanent demands during operations. Given the Project’s scope and nature (i.e., warehouse construction and landscape maintenance), Project operations would create a demand for water, and increase wastewater or solid waste generation. This Alternative would maintain the existing demand for all utilities, which is none. The No Project Alternative would retain the Project site in its current condition. Temporary increases in utility demand and construction of utilities would not occur during construction, and neither would increase in services and utilities demand resulting from operation of the warehouse. Therefore, under this Alternative, impacts regarding utilities and service systems would be less compared to the Project. The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-19).

Wildfire. The No Project Alternative would not involve the construction of warehouse uses, and rather, keep the vacant Project site in its current state. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA. However, the located within an LRA and is designated as a Very High FHSZ zone. The Project would include the development of a warehouse with a fire suppression system and the Project would construct roadway improvements which would serve as fire breaks. This in turn would reduce the potential for fires to occur 932
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
74 on-site and then spread off of the Project site. In the Project site’s existing conditions and under the No Project Alternative there would be no development of the property or of the roadways. The risks of wildfires would remain with no opportunity, other than fire service response, to control or abate a fire on the Project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be environmentally inferior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-9).

Attainment of Project Objectives. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified in Draft EIR, Section 3.0 Project Description, as the Project site would remain in its current state of development (vacant).

Alternative 2 Reduced Building Intensity
Findings: Alternative 2 would entail the development of a single warehouse building at a smaller square footage than what was proposed for the Project. The Alternative would involve the development of a 1,122,000 square foot warehousing building which would include approximately 33,660 square feet of office space. A 15 percent reduction in building intensity was selected as it represents the largest decrease in building size that would remain financially and economically feasible for the Applicant considering the current Project site and location. A much larger reduction in size would be required to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant. A reduction of more than 80 percent in the building footprint would be required to reduce the significant unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions of the Project to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. However, this reduction in size would not be financially or economically feasible nor would it meet any of the Project objectives and therefore was not considered.

Alternative 2 would minimize impacts related to the scale of the Project. Therefore, environmental impact areas such as aesthetics, energy, utilities and service systems, and wildfire hazards may see a nominal improvement regarding potential impact significance. However, these resource areas are anticipated to have a less than significant impact under the Project. The Project was able to achieve a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated in all environmental impact areas except air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. These resources were anticipated to create significant and unavoidable impacts (Draft EIR, p. 6-10 to 6-11).

Aesthetics. Under Alternative 2, the building footprint and building elevations would be nominally reduced. The smaller size of the warehouse building proposed in Alternative 2 would create similar impact to aesthetic resources. There would be no overall reduction or increase in the impacts to views scenic vistas. When compared to the Project, aesthetics impacts associated with the Alternative 2 would be nominally reduced. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-11).

Air Quality. As previously stated, the Project would conflict with established air quality plans for the region and pollutant generation. Specifically, the Project would exceed NOx, emissions thresholds during its operational phase. Alternative 2 would propose the same business park land use as the Project although the business park building space would be reduced by 198,000 square feet (15 percent) for the 933
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
75 Alternative. This would reduce potential operational emissions through the reduced building area.

However, the majority of operational emissions would result from mobile sources such as vehicles and construction equipment. The vehicular traffic generated from the Project is not anticipated to be significantly reduced in Alternative 2; however, vehicular traffic would be slightly reduced commensurate with the reduction in building footprint. Operations of Alternative 2 are expected to be similar to the Project. The emissions generated from this Alternative would be slightly reduced when compared to the Project; however, it would remain significant and unavoidable. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-11).

Biological Resources. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar biological resource impacts. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce biological resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-11).

Cultural Resources. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar potential impacts to cultural resources. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce cultural resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-11 to 6-12).

Energy. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would require energy during the construction and operations phases of the Project, although Alternative 2 would require approximately 15 percent less energy to build and operate when compared to the Project. When compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer energy-related impacts than the Project. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12).

Geology and Soils. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would be located on the same site and disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar geology and soils impacts. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce geology and soils, and paleontological impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-12).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impacts were associated with the potential to conflict with GHG emissions regulations through the generation of excess MTCO2e. The Project’s GHG emissions stem largely from mobile source emissions, which would be slightly reduced when compared to the Project. For this impact, mitigation is proposed to reduce potential impacts, however, the Project was still found to exceed thresholds with mitigation. Alternative 2 would likely 934
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
76 reduce emissions impacts through a reduction in energy use due to the reduced building size. Even with a reduction in energy use emissions, the mobile source emissions associated with vehicular travel would be slightly reduced, commensurate with the reduction in traffic. While Alternative 2 would result in fewer GHG emissions, it would be unlikely to reduce emissions such that they would not exceed the City’s GHG emissions thresholds. The impact would be expected to remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-12).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would disturb the same footprint for construction and operation of a landscaped warehouse building, and as such, would result in similar hazards impacts. As with the Project, no mitigation measures would be required to reduce hazards impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-12 to 6-13).

Hydrology and Water Quality. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would disturb the same footprint for construction and operation of a landscaped warehouse building with implementation of a stormflow detention system, and as such, would result in similar hydrology and water quality impacts. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-13).

Noise. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would generate noise during the construction and operations phases of the Project, although the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would generate approximately 15 percent less noise when compared to the Project given the reduction in building size. As with the Project and due to a lack of nearby sensitive receptors as well as proximity to I-10, no mitigation measures would be required to reduce noise impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-13).

Public Services. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would require similar public services needs, even with 15 percent reduction in size. When compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in similar public services impacts related impacts than the Project. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-13).

Transportation. The Project was not found to meet any available VMT screening criteria and therefore was found to exceed the City’s VMT per employee threshold by 9.5 percent. Implementation of feasible VMT reduction measures would not definitively reduce Project VMT or Project VMT impacts to less than significant levels.
935
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
77 Alternative 2 would involve the development of a smaller warehouse building which would utilize a smaller portion of the Project site and the number of dock doors and employees would be reduced under this Alternative. Alternative 2 business park uses would be approximately 15 percent less than the Project.

It is anticipated that a 15 percent reduction of projected employment would occur with this Alternative.

VMT impacts associated with the Project were found to be significant and unavoidable. While the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative includes a building that is 15 percent smaller, it is anticipated that this Alternative would still exceed City VMT thresholds and realize a significant and unavoidable impact. As such, the Alternative 2 would result in a lessened impacts but would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-13).

Tribal Cultural Resources. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. As with the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce tribal cultural resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. However, impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-11 to 6-12).

Utilities and Service Systems. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would require additional utilities and service system infrastructure to be constructed to serve them. While Alternative 2 would require approximately 15 percent fewer utility needs when compared to the Project given the reduction in size.

The Project would not cause significant impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. All utilities would be able to serve the Project after adequate infrastructure would be constructed as part of the Project. Overall, when considering the scale of Alternative 2, Alternative 2 would result in similar utility and service system impacts related impacts than the Project. Impacts associated with both the Project and Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-14).

Wildfire. Under Alternative 2, the development of the Project site would occur similar to the Project, but business park use would be reduced 15 percent. Existing development in the Project area includes roadways, public facilities, and vacant land planned for business park uses. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA. However, the located within an LRA and is designated as a Very High FHSZ zone. Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 is with an LRA zone, provision of fire protection services would continue under contract to the Riverside County Fire Department. Similar to the Project, the Alternative 2 warehouse structure would be predominantly concrete which is not typically susceptible to fire. Neither Alternative 2, nor the Project, would interfere with any emergency plan or evacuation plan. This Alternative also would not exacerbate any existing fire hazards associated with slopes or spreading of wildfire. Lastly, neither the Project nor this Alternative would require construction of any infrastructure that could exacerbate fire hazards. Furthermore, under this Alternative, as with the Project, roadways would be constructed which would serve as fire breaks and help prevent the spread of active wildfires. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. The Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-14). 936
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
78 Attainment of Project Objectives. Alternative 2 would meet all of the objectives of the Project despite the smaller building size. However, Alternative 2 does not maximize the City’s benefits realized or achievement of the Project Objectives when compared to the Project. Implementation of Alternative 2 would achieve the Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the Project.

Alternative 2 would: develop an industrial project that conforms to the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code (Objective 1); provide a new development that will generate a positive fiscal balance for the City moving forward (Objective 2); facilitate the movement of goods and services for the benefit of local and regional economic growth (Objective 5); develop a warehouse project adjacent to transportation corridors, truck routes, local amenities, and the nearby Interstate 10 Freeway for employee convenience and efficiencies of transporting goods (Objective 6); improve public safety and traffic flow in eastern Banning with roadway and infrastructure improvements (Objective 8); provide enhanced landscaping along City designated corridors with the construction of wide streets and landscaped setbacks (Objective 9); and provide the backbone infrastructure for future growth and prosperity of the surrounding benefit (Objective 10). However, the reduction of 198,000 square feet would lower the City’s potential tax revenue (Objective 3) and provide fewer employment opportunities to area residents (Objective 4). Additionally, the Project would not fully or efficiently utilize the entirety of the property in which the Project is situated (Objective 7). This alternative would not meet Objective 3, Objective 4, or Objective 7.

Alternative 3 Two Building Alternative
Findings: Alternative 3 would maintain similar impacts related to the scale of the Project since Alternative 3 proposes an approximately 2 percent decrease in the warehouse building footprint.

Therefore, environmental impact areas such as energy and utilities and service systems may see a nominal decrease regarding potential impact significance. However, these resource areas are anticipated to have a less than significant impacts under the Project. The Project was able to achieve a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated in all environmental impact areas except air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation. These resources were anticipated to create significant and unavoidable impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16).

Aesthetics. Alternative 3 would develop two buildings, compared to the one building under the Project.

The development of two buildings would cause lesser visual impacts on the surrounding area, scenic vistas, and the visual character of the Project site when compared to the Project. As the building footprint would be nominally decreased by 2 percent with this Alternative, the general mass and scale of the Project site would appear to have a lesser visual impact for two buildings on-site as opposed to one. This would be due to the increased green space and landscaping that would be required when taking setbacks, building spacing, and required landscaping areas into account. Furthermore, with a two building alternative, there would be additional site planning criterion to meet and may provide a more flexible layout when considering the amount of earthwork that may be required. Each building final floor elevations could be different and would eliminate the need for grading, this would help ensure that the general visual character would remain. Further, the two building alternative would allow separate screening to occur to prevent views of operations that some individuals may find unappealing. When compared to the Project, aesthetics impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be less when compared 937
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
79 to the Project. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-16).

Air Quality. As previously stated, the Project would conflict with established air quality plans for the region and pollutant generation. Specifically, the Project would exceed NOx thresholds during its operational phase from vehicular trips. Alternative 3 would propose the same warehousing land use as the Project, although the warehousing building space would be divided into two buildings totaling 1,293,600-squarefeet of building space. This is a decrease in warehouse footprint by 26,400 square feet from the Project.

This would slightly reduce potential operational emissions through the reduced building area. However, the majority of operational emissions stem from mobile sources such as vehicles and construction equipment. The vehicular traffic generated from the Project is not anticipated to be significantly reduced in Alternative 3. Operations of Alternative 3 is expected to be similar to the Project. Because the usage would be similar, the emissions generated from Alternative 3 would be similar to the Project and would also likely create a significant and unavoidable impact. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16).

Biological Resources. Both the Alternative 3 and the Project would disturb a similar footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar biological resource impacts. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce biological resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of the Two Building Alternative. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-17).

Cultural Resources. Both the Alternative 3 and the Project would disturb similar footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar cultural resource impacts. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce tribal cultural resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of the Two Building Alternative. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-17) Energy. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would require energy during both the construction and operations phases of the Project. Construction and operation of two buildings would require similar energy usage compared to the one building proposed under the Project. When compared to the Project, Alternative 3 would result in similar energy-related impacts than the Project. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-17).

Geology and Soils. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would disturb a similar footprint for construction of a warehouse facility on the same site, and as such, would result in similar geology and soils impacts. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce geology and soils, including paleontological resources, impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 3. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-17).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impacts were associated with the potential to conflict with GHG regulations through the generation of excess MTCO2e. The Project’s 938
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
80 GHG emissions stem largely from mobile source emissions. For this impact, mitigation was proposed to reduce potential impacts, however, the Project was still found to exceed thresholds with mitigation.

Alternative 3 would likely reduce emissions impacts through a reduction in energy use commiserated with the reduction in building footprint. Additionally, these interior spaces would be more energy efficient in terms of environmental control (HVAC). However, the usage rate of the Project site would remain similar.

Even with a reduction in energy use emissions, the mobile source emissions associated with vehicular travel would not be largely reduced, any reduction would be too small to account for it. Therefore, Alternative 3 would likely remain in excess of the City’s GHG thresholds. The impact would be expected to remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-17 to 6-18).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would disturb a similar footprint for construction of a landscaped warehouse facility, and as such, would result in similar hazards impacts. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-18).

Hydrology and Water Quality. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would disturb a similar footprint for construction of a landscaped warehouse building with implementation of a stormflow detention system, and as such, would result in similar hydrology and water quality impacts. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-18).

Noise. Both the Alternative 3 and the Project would generate noise and vibration during both the construction and operations phases of the Project. As this Alternative would consist of construction over the same Project footprint and would result in identical operational uses, the noise and vibration generated from the construction and operation of this Alternative would be similar to that of the Project.

While this Alternative does represent a 2 percent reduction in building footprint, it is unlikely that this would result in a meaningful reduction in noise. Therefore, noise impacts would be similar under Alternative 3 compared to the Project. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-18).

Public Services. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would require additional public service needs. With the development of two buildings, provision of public services would be required. When compared to the Project, the Alternative 3 would result in similar public services impacts related to the Project. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-18).

Transportation. Despite the nominal footprint size reduction, Alternative 3 would likely remain similar to the Project in usage intensity. Further, the number of employees would be largely the same. Alternative 3 would be approximately 2 percent smaller than the Project. A 2 percent reduction of projected employment would lead to nominal decrease in employees. This would not drastically change the projected number of vehicular trips for Alternative 3 especially since large amounts of traffic would come from operations-based truck transportation which is not proposed to be reduced. As the intensity of development between Alternative 3 and the Project would be similar and the uses would be identical, 939
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
81 traffic-based impacts would be similar. Because the vehicular travel would be largely the same between alternatives, a significant and unavoidable impact would occur with either the Project or Alternative 3.

The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-18 to 6-19).

Tribal Cultural Resources. Both the Alternative 3 and the Project would disturb a similar footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar tribal cultural resource impacts. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce tribal cultural resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of the Two Building Alternative. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-17).

Utilities and Service Systems. Both the Alternative 3 and the Project would require additional utilities and service system needs. Although the Two Building Alternative would require approximately 2 percent less utility needs when compared to the Project given the reduction in size. When compared to the Project, the Two Building Alternative would result in slightly reduced utility and service system related impacts than the d Project; however, it is anticipated these reductions would be nominal and impacts would be similar. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-19).

Wildfire. Under Alternative 3, the development of the Project site would occur similar to the Project, however, building footprint would be reduced by 2 percent and would result in two buildings rather than one. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA. However, the located within an LRA and is designated as a Very High FHSZ zone. Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 is within an LRA zone, and the provision of fire protection services would continue under contract to the Riverside County Fire Department. Similar to the Project, the Alternative 3 warehouse structures would be predominantly concrete which is not typically susceptible to fire. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would disturb a similar footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar wildfire impacts. As with the Project, development of Alternative 3 would include fire suppression methods that would reduce the potential for fire.

Furthermore, under this Alternative, as with the Project, roadways would be constructed which would serve as fire breaks and help prevent the spread of active wildfires. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of the Two Building Alternative. The Two Building Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-19).

Attainment of Project Objectives. Implementation of Alternative 3 would achieve each of the Project objectives, but not to the fullest extent as would be achieved by the Project. Alternative 3 would: develop an industrial project that conforms to the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code (Objective 1); provide a new development that will generate a positive fiscal balance for the City moving forward (Objective 2); design and build a Class-A institutional quality industrial project that will attract high end tenants and increase the City’s tax base (Objective 3); generate employment opportunities within the City while improving the local balance of housing to job ratio (Objective 4); facilitate the movement of goods and services for the benefit of local and regional economic growth (Objective 5); develop a warehouse project adjacent to transportation corridors, truck routes, local amenities, and the nearby Interstate 10 Freeway 940
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
82 for employee convenience and efficiencies of transporting goods (Objective 6); develop a warehouse project which efficiently uses the property, while conforming to all City regulatory policies (Objective 7); improve public safety and traffic flow in eastern Banning with roadway and infrastructure improvements (Objective 8); provide enhanced landscaping along City designated corridors with the construction of wide streets and landscaped setbacks (Objective 9); and provide the backbone infrastructure for future growth and prosperity of the surrounding benefit (Objective 10). While this Alternative would meet all of the Project objectives, developing two cumulatively smaller buildings compared to the one warehouse Project site would not meet these Project objectives to the fullest extent possible.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
Based on the summary of information presented in Draft EIR, Table 6-1, Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project, the environmentally superior Alternative is Alternative 3: Two Building Alternative. Because Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts related to aesthetic resources due to the increase in landscaping on the Project site which would protect the visual character of the City of Banning’s interface with undeveloped areas. However, the Two Building Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation. Impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar to the Project. Additionally, the Two Building Alternative would meet all of the Project objectives.

CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Banning) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm.

After the No Project Alternative, the environmentally superior Alternative to the Project is the one that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. Based on the evaluation undertaken, Alternative 3: “Two Building” is the environmentally superior Alternative. This is an environmentally superior project alternative because it would have the least environmental impacts, because although the impacts would not be entirely avoided, the impacts would be decreased when compared to the Project.

While Alternative 3 would satisfy all of the Project objectives, Alternative 3 does not maximize the City’s benefits realized or achievement of the Project Objectives when compared to the Project, and it would still cause the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-20 to 6-21).

6.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines provide in part the following:
(a) CEQA requires that the decision maker balance the benefits of a Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
941
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
83 (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the findings under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines).

The City of Banning, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR for the Project, which includes Comments and Responses to Draft EIR (Final EIR Section 2.0), and the public record, adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations that have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this Project.

6.2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
To the extent that the significant effects of the Project are not avoided or substantially lessened to below a level of significance, the City of Banning, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in view of the following overriding considerations. The City finds that any one of these Project benefits standing alone would be sufficient to sustain the Statement of Overriding Considerations:

1. All feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen Project impacts to less than significant levels; and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because while they have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the Project, as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.

2. The Project is consistent with and will contribute to achieving the goals and objectives established by the General Plan. Implementing the City’s General Plan as a policy is a legal and social prerogative of the City. The Project will be consistent with General Plan Goals and Policies through the implementation of mitigation measures, and adherence to plans, programs, and policies and laws, ordinances, and regulations that are based on local, state, or federal requirements.

3. The Project that will generate a positive fiscal balance for the City moving forward. Approval of the Project will contribute towards maximizing employment opportunities within the City to improve the jobs-housing balance and to reduce systemic unemployment within the City. The Project will attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of essential goods to consumers and businesses in the City and region.

4. Approval of the Project will create maximum local and regional employment-generating opportunities for citizens of the City and surrounding communities. Specifically, approval of the Project will create approximately 2,841 new jobs, in addition to temporary construction jobs.

5. Construction spending will create a one-time stimulus to the local and regional economies. 942
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
84 6. The Project will employ local members of the Carpenter’s, Plumbers and Pipefitter’s, Ironworker’s, and Laborer’s unions to ensure the presence of a well-trained, high-quality construction workforce at the Project.

7. The Project will facilitate the movement of goods and services for the benefit of local and regional economic growth. The Project is strategically located adjacent to transportation corridors, truck routes, local amenities, including the adjacent Interstate 10, thereby ensuring employee convenience and efficient movement of goods and a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

8. The Project will pay fair share contributions towards future local circulation improvements.

9. The Project will include the creation of new driveways, improvements of adjacent/near-by roadways, and development of internal circulation pathways, thereby improving public safety and traffic flow in eastern Banning with roadway and infrastructure improvements.

10. Approval of the Project will result in improved infrastructure to keep pace with development and will enhance the quality of life for the City’s residents by linking land use, transportation, and infrastructure development.

11. The Project will provide enhanced landscaping along City designated corridors with the construction of wide streets and landscaped setbacks.

12. The Project will provide electric passenger car charging infrastructure, including charging infrastructure for a future autonomous truck charging area.

Although significant impacts will remain, the City will mitigate any significant adverse impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and transportation (vehicle miles traveled) to the maximum extent practicable. In its decision to approve the Project, the City has considered the Project benefits to outweigh the environmental impacts.

7.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR

7.1 FINDINGS
The City certifies that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and that the City has complied with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements.

The City further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the EIR in evaluation the Project and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City further finds that no new significant information as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after the circulation of the Draft EIR that would require further recirculation.

Accordingly, the City certifies the Final EIR for the Banning Commerce Center Project.

As the decision-making body for approval, the City has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting documentation. The City determines that the Findings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the unavoidable impacts and benefits of the Project as detailed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
943
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
85 7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Project will have significant adverse impacts even following adoption of all feasible mitigation measures which are required by the City. The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will require mitigation but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance:

AIR QUALITY
The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: (1) the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, due to construction and operational emissions and (2) the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the region is non-attainment, due to construction and operational NOx emissions.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impacts, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: (1) the Project would generate long-term operational GHG emissions in excess of the City’s adopted 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Therefore, the Project’s GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment; (2) the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, namely the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Mitigated Project-related GHG emissions total 22,969 MTCO2e annually. Thus, the Project could impede California’s Statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050; and (3) the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact.

TRANSPORTATION
The Project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: the Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Project Buildout is estimated to exceed the City’s adopted VMT threshold. Regardless of potential reductions in VMT through feasible reduction measures, reductions in VMT cannot be accurately estimated or guaranteed. Even with implementation of regulatory requirements, and consideration of mitigation, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

Details of these significant unavoidable adverse impacts were discussed in the Final EIR and are summarized, or were otherwise provided in Section 5.3, Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation and Findings, in the Statement of Facts and Findings.

The City has eliminated or substantially reduced environmental impacts where feasible as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings, and the City determines that the remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts are acceptable due to the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 6.0).
944
Banning Commerce Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Final Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Banning October 2024
86 CONCLUSIONS

1. Except as to those impacts stated above relating to air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation, all other significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.

2. Alternatives to the Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.

3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.

8.0 ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts, as conditions of approval of the Project, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the attached MMRP, the MMRP shall control, except to the extent that a mitigation measure contained herein is inadvertently omitted from the MMRP, in which case such mitigation measure shall be deemed as if it were included in the MMRP. 945
Resolution 2025-107
Exhibit 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
946
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Banning Commerce Center Project
947
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 Section 1: Authority
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091(d) and 15097, to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Banning Commerce Center (Project), as set forth in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the office of the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Banning (City).

As noted in the EIR, the Project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources. The EIR also addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts. The Program, detailed in the matrix table below, is designed to monitor and ensure implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.

The City is the Lead Agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction manager or third-party monitor. However, as the Lead Agency, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program. In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the mitigation measure. The City’s existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.

Section 2: Monitoring Schedule
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by City staff or its agents, City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring reports, as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with regulatory permit conditions and monitoring/reporting as part of the regulatory permitting process and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports. Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the Project as specified in the mitigation measures.

Section 3: Support Documentation
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Program and shall be made available to the public upon request.
948
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 Section 4: Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and the responsible implementing and monitoring agencies.

Section 5: Definitions
The following list provides definitions for acronyms used in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description
AQ Air Quality
AMTP Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
BIO Biological Resources
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
COA Conditions of Approval
CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
CUL Cultural Resources
DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area
EV Electric Vehicle
FIRE Wildfire
GEO Geology and Soils
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HSC Health and Safety Code
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Public Resources Code
PRIMP Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program PV Photovoltaic
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
949
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SOI Secretary of the Interior Standards
TDM Transportation Demand Management
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
TRANS Traffic and Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Chemical
WAIRE Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions WDR Wastewater Discharge Requirement
WEAP Worker Education and Awareness Program
950
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)

AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-1: The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings.

Super-compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
• All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints. • Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oilbased paints. • Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
• Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.
• Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
• Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable.
• Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of building permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety Division
951
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM AQ-2: Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the tenant/facility operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
• Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options.
• Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day.
• Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ridematching service. • Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential carpool/vanpool parking or others.
• Each building shall provide preferred parking for electric, lowemitting and fuel-efficient vehicles equivalent to at least eight percent of the required number of parking spaces.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant occupancy and not the building shell approvals.

Tenant/ facility
operator
Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permits
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety Division
MM AQ-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Shell Design, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
• The Project buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.
• Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the Project applicant Prior to issuance
of building permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety Division
952
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

This mitigation measure applies only to building shell approvals and not the tenant improvements.

MM AQ-4: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that all truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
• Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. • Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after two minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
• Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the importance of being a good neighbor by not parking in residential areas.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Tenant/ facility
operator
Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permit
and periodically
after development
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety
Department
MM AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications shall include requirements (by contract specifications) that vendor trucks for the industrial buildings include 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. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Tenant/ facility
operator
Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permit
and periodically
after development
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety
Department
953
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM AQ-6: The Project shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show that all outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Tenant/ facility
operator
Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permit
and periodically
after development
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety
Department

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: MSHCP Burrowing Owl 30-Day Preconstruction Surveys In order to avoid Project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site and violation of the Burrowing Owl Protocol and the California Fish and Game Code 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, a 30-day preconstruction survey presence/absence survey for burrowing owl within the Impact Site (and 500-foot survey buffer) in accordance with the March 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County MSHCP Area shall be conducted by a qualified prior to initial ground disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, grading, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground disturbing activities. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of Project activities and reported to CDFW.

If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately stop work and inform the City of Banning and the Wildlife Agencies (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]). In consultation with the Wildlife Agencies additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be undertaken Project applicant
Qualified Biologist
30 days prior to
issuance of a
Grading Permit or
other
constructionrelated vegetation
removal, and
ground
disturbance
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division in
conjunction with
construction
contractor and
qualified biologist
approved by the City
and retained by the
Project Applicant
954
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protecting and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owls. If active nests are identified on an implementing Project site during the pre-construction survey, the Project applicant shall not commence activities until no sign is present that the burrows are being used by adult or juvenile owls or following CDFW approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan as described below. If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion-activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow occupancy. The on-site qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

The qualified biologist and Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Plan to be approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City will implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

If active burrowing owl burrows are detected within Impact Site(s) during Project implementation and construction, the Project applicant shall notify CDFW immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. A Burrowing Owl Plan will be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two weeks of detection and no Project activity will continue within 1,000 feet of the burrowing owls until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City shall be responsible 955
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

A final report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist documenting the results of the burrowing owl surveys and detailing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The final report will be provided to City of Banning and CDFW within 30 days of completion of the survey and burrow monitoring for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

MM BIO-2: Nesting Bird Preconstruction Surveys: Regulatory requirement for potential direct/indirect impacts to nesting common and sensitive bird species will require compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game (CDFG) Code Section 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) should be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, outside of the peak nesting season. Regardless of the time of year, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation grubbing, and grading.

The survey(s) will focus on identifying any bird nests that would be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. The survey area will include the Project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint.

Within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, all areas surveyed by the biologist will be cleared by the Contractor or a supplemental nesting bird survey is required. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
Three days prior to
grading or other
constructionrelated vegetation
removal, and
ground
disturbance, if
these activities
occur between
January 15th and
September 15th
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division in
conjunction with
construction
contractor and
qualified biologist
approved by the City
and retained by the
Project Applicant
956
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of
implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities.

Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are identified during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Banning, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the Project biologist determines the young have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of Project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such Project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure 957
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are disturbing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a final monitoring report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, will be submitted to the City of Banning documenting compliance with the CDFG Code.

MM BIO-3: USACE/CDFW/RWQCB Riverine Resources: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant will obtain a USACE Section 404 Nation Wide Permit, RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certificate, and CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Applicant shall notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources and obtain a CDFW-executed Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement authorizing impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources associated with the Project.

The notification to CDFW should provide the following information:

1. A stream delineation including the bed, bank, and channel;

2. Linear feet and/or acreage of streams and associated natural communities that would be permanently and/or temporarily impacted by the Project. This includes impacts as a result of routine maintenance and fuel modification. Plant community names should be provided based on vegetation association and/or alliance per the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al 2009);

3. A discussion as to whether impacts on streams within the Project site would impact those streams immediately outside of the Project site where there is hydrologic connectivity.

Project applicant Prior to issuance
of grading permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division in
coordination with the
Public Works
Department,
Engineering Divisions
and the California
Department Fish and
Wildlife and Regional
Water Quality
Control Board
958
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
Potential impacts such as changes to drainage pattern, runoff, and sedimentation should be discussed; and

4. A hydrological evaluation of the 100-year storm event to provide information on how water and sediment is conveyed through the Project site.

Currently, the impacted drainages and overall watershed are not within a service area of an approved mitigation bank. Depending on the timing of impacts and issuance of regulatory permits, should a mitigation bank become approved for the Whitewater River watershed, at minimum 2.67-acres of habitat creation credits from an approved bank will be purchased. However, since at this time no mitigation bank is approved for the whitewater watershed, it is assumed at minimum 2.67-acres of on-site creation is required as outlined below. If it is determined that on-site mitigation is not feasible, creation of non-wetland waters at an off-site location would be required. The off-site location would be required to have a conservation easement or deed restriction placed over the mitigation area to ensure the site remains mitigation in perpetuity. Additionally, whether on or off-site, the mitigation site will require long-term maintenance and management by a qualified conservancy, including payment of a non-wasting endowment to fund the long-term maintenance.

To meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative, the applicant will offset permanent impacts to a minimum 0.54-acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine resources (CDFW jurisdictional resource) as follows including the preparation of an MSHCP DBESP.
• Permanent impacts to a minimum of 0.54-acres of jurisdictional features will be mitigated at a minimum of a 5:1 ratio (2.67 acres) through the creation of in-kind habitat on-site along the eastern and northern most Project boundary. If it is determined that onsite mitigation or off-site is not feasible, additional alternatives could include, payment into an acceptable an approved mitigation bank should one become available at the time of impacts and permitting.
959
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
• A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the creation of inkind habitat will be prepared, reviewed and approved by the City of Banning, USACE, RWQCB and CDFW. The created habitat will be monitored by the Project proponent for a minimum of 5 years; monitoring reports shall be provided to the City of Banning and appropriate regulatory agency on an annual basis. The restoration area must meet standardized success criteria as described in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which will be required as part of the permit process and approved by the Resource Agencies.
• A DBESP will be also prepared, reviewed and approved by the City of Banning and MSHCP wildlife agencies prior to the issuance of grading permits.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an archaeological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist. This plan shall include a grading observation schedule, to be maintained when initial mass grading occurs in upper soils, to identify and further evaluate any cultural resources that may be discovered in the Project area. A qualified archaeologist and/or Native American monitor(s) from Consulting Tribe(s) shall be retained to attend pre-grading meetings and to monitor earthmoving activities, including clearing, grubbing, cutting, and trenching at the site. The archaeologist and/or Native American monitor(s) from Consulting Tribe(s) shall carefully inspect these areas to assess the potential for significant prehistoric or historic remains. If potential archaeological and historical resources are uncovered, the construction contractor shall cease grading operations in the vicinity of the find until further evaluation is undertaken to assess the discovery. Further subsurface investigation may be needed if the resource is determined unique or important for its prehistoric or historic information.

Project applicant
Qualified
Archaeologist
Prior to issuance
of grading permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division;
and qualified
archaeologist, and
tribal representative
960
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM CUL-2: If archaeological remnants are discovered during monitoring, the archaeologist and/or Native American monitor(s) from Consulting Tribe(s) shall have the authority to divert construction in order to assess the significance of the find. Remnants shall be properly evaluated, documented, and deposited as applicable, consistent with State and local protocols.

Project Applicant
Qualified
Archaeologist
Native American
Monitor
During project
ground disturbing
activities
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division;
and qualified
archaeologist, and
tribal representative
MM CUL-3: If previously unknown cultural resources, including human remains, are identified during grading activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess the nature and significance of the find. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

The County Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC.

The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Project applicant
Qualified
archaeologist
During project
ground disturbing
activities
Project Contractor,
County Coroner,
Native American
Heritage
Commission, City of
Banning, Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM GEO-1: The Project would comply with the grading guidelines and all recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project.

Project developer Prior to issuance
of grading permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety Division
MM GEO-2: The Applicant will submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City’s Community Development Director, or designee, prior to the issuance of a grading permit to reduce impacts Project applicant
Qualified
paleontologist
Prior to issuance
of grading permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
961
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
to sensitive paleontological resources during construction activities, and all other surface-disturbance activities. The PRIMP would include the following:
• The PRIMP shall be prepared by a Qualified Paleontologist, based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines, and meet all regulatory requirements. The qualified paleontologist shall have a Master’s Degree or Ph.D. in paleontology, shall have knowledge of the local paleontology, and shall be familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.
• The PRIMP shall include a site-specific investigation that will identify construction impact areas of ranging sensibility and approximate depths at which those resources are likely to be encountered. The Plan shall define monitoring procedures and methodology, and shall specify that sediments of undetermined sensitivity shall be monitored on a part-time basis (as determined by the Qualified Paleontologist).
• The PRIMP shall state which resources will be avoided and which shall be recovered for their data potential. Where possible, recovery is preferred over avoidance in order to mitigate the potential for looting of paleontological resources. The Plan shall also detail methods of recovery, preparation and analysis of specimens, final curation of specimens at a federally accredited repository, data analysis, and reporting.

Department,
Planning Division
MM GEO-3: A qualified paleontologist will attend preconstruction meetings to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning planned depths, excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. In addition, all on-site construction personnel will receive Worker Education and Awareness Program (WEAP) training prior to the commencement of excavation work. All ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction occurring within previously undisturbed fossil bearing formations will be monitored by a qualified paleontologist or qualified paleontological monitor. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials and works under the direction of a qualified Project applicant
Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to
commencement of
grading and
excavation
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
962
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
paleontologist. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) will recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time; however, some fossil specimens, such as a complete large mammal skeleton, may require an extended salvage period. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) will be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on site.

MM GEO-4: Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the program will be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and catalogued.

Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, will be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections located within Riverside County (or, if no repository is available, adjacent Counties). A final data recovery report will be completed that outlines the results on the paleontological monitoring program. This report will include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. The report will be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, or designee, upon completion.

Qualified
Paleontologist
During excavation City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MM GHG-1: Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Project shall be required to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system or otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, sufficient to power the anticipated initial improvements for the warehouse (i.e., the Title 24 electricity demand and the plug-load). The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s Rule 21 governs operating and metering requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s distribution system. Should SCE limit the off-site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy storage system (BESS) to lower off-site export while maintaining on-site renewable generation to off-set consumption. The building shall Tenant/ facility
operator
Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety Division
963
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
include an electrical system and other infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage.

In addition, to ensure that the Project’s electrical room(s) is sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either (1) a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or (2) the primary electrical room shall be sized 25 percent larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with 25 percent excess demand capacity.

MM GHG-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Banning demonstrating that the Project is designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards or meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.

Project
applicant/successor
in interest
Prior to the
issuance of a
building permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety Division
MM GHG-3: The development shall divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of tenant occupancy permits, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with County standards for Recyclable Collection and Loading Areas, and the facility’s operator shall be required to provide the City with a copy of the Project’s recycling program. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

Tenant/ facility
operator
Project developer
Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permit
City of Banning Public
Works Department
MM GHG-4: Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

Project applicant Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
MM GHG-5: Conduits for the installation of electrical hookups to allow future electric vehicle (EV) trucks and trucks with auxiliary power units (APU) shall be installed at a ratio of one charging station for every 50 dock high doors.

Project applicant Prior to issuance
of building permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
964
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
Department, Building
and Safety Division

TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-1: Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for future tenants, the future tenant shall demonstrate implementation of reasonable and feasible VMT reduction measures to the satisfaction of the City of Banning Planning Director. Measures to be considered include, but are not limited to VMT strategy reduction measures:

Potential VMT Reduction Strategies
The following are potential VMT reduction measures that could be implemented:
• The Project may implement a Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) measure. The purpose of the CTR would be to encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, which would reduce VMT. A proposed CTR program for this Project could include providing on-site and/or online commute information services including information on available transit and ride coordination for employees.
• The Project could provide designated carpool/vanpool parking in desirable locations on-site, which could encourage employees to carpool/vanpool to work and reduce VMT.
• The Project could install end-of-trip facilities such as bicycle parking and lockers which could encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation and thus reduce VMT. • The Project could increase sidewalks along the Project frontage and provide connections to existing trails (if applicable) in order to improve pedestrian access. This measure could encourage employees to walk to nearby destinations and thus reduce VMT. • The Project could implement employee parking cash-out policies.

Cash-out is when employers provide employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking, provided by the employer, in lieu of a cash payment equivalent to or greater than Tenant/ facility
operator
Prior to issuance
of tenant
occupancy permit
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
City of Banning,
Public Works
Department,
Engineering Division
965
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 20 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
the cost of the parking space. This encourages employees to use other modes of travel instead of single occupancy vehicles.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM TCR-1: Native American Treatment 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 grounddisturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground-disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

Project applicant Prior to issuance
of grading permit
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
City of Banning
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
Qualified
archaeologist
MM TCR-2: Retention of Archaeologist: Prior to any grounddisturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post replacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind) and prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI). The archaeologist shall be present during all ground disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The archaeologist will conduct a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribe[s] Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and/or designated Tribal Representative.

The training session will focus on what the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during grounddisturbing activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event.

Project applicant
Qualified
Archaeologist
Prior to issuance
of grading permit
and prior to any
ground
disturbance
THPO and/or Tribal
representative(s)
City of Banning
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
Qualified
Archaeologist
MM TCR-3: Cultural Resource Management Plan: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities the project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities Project applicant
Qualified
Archaeologist
Prior to any
ground
disturbance
Tribal
representative(s)
City of Banning
Community
966
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 21 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
that occur on the project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the consulting Tribe[s] and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the project schedule.

Development
Department,
Planning Division
Qualified
Archaeologist
MM TCR-4: Pre-Grade Meeting: The retained qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe[s] representative shall attend the pre-grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

Project developer
Qualified
Archaeologist
Prior to
commencement of
ground disturbing
activity
Tribal
representative(s)
City of Banning
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
Qualified
Archaeologist
Grading Contractor
MM TCR-5: On-site Monitoring: During all ground-disturbing activities the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be on-site full-time. The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074. Archaeological and Native American monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits.

The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

Qualified
Archaeologist
Native American
Monitor
Project applicant
During all grounddisturbing
activities
Tribal
representative(s)
City of Banning
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
Qualified
Archaeologist
967
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 22 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM TCR-6: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.

If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within 60-feet of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the consulting Tribe[s] and the Native American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the Tribal Cultural Resource’s treatment and disposition shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Native American monitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Below are the possible treatment and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQAs preference:
• Full avoidance.
• If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.
• If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.
• If all other options have been proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and curated in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (CFR s79.1)
Qualified
Archaeologist
During all grounddisturbing
activities
Tribal
representative(s)
City of Banning
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
Qualified
Archaeologist
968
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 23 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM TCR-7: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains: The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe[s].

Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground-disturbing activities (i.e., 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), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within 100-feet of the discovery.

The area shall be protected, project personnel/observers restricted.

The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery.

The County Coroner has 48 hours to come to his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.

In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC Section 7050.5.

The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make their recommendation for final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.

Project applicant
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
Qualified
Archaeologist
Upon discovery of
Human remains
Project Contractor,
County Coroner,
Native American
Heritage
Commission, City of
Banning, Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division,
Tribal
Representative(s)
969
Banning Commerce Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 24 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians has been named the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance 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 Section 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations will be determined by the Tribes Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the landowner, and the City Planning Department.

MM TCR-8: Final Report: The final report[s] created as a part of the project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment. After approval from all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe[s].

Project applicant
Qualified
Archaeologist
Upon cessation of
ground disturbing
activities
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division

WILDFIRE
MM FIRE-1: Fire Safety Requirements. The Project shall be required to comply with all Fire Safety Requirements as identified in Section 5 of the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the Project (Appendix M1).

Conformance with these requirements shall be verified by the City of Banning Community Development Department during design review prior to the issuance of building and grading permits.

Project applicant Prior to the
issuance of
building and
grading permits
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
City of Banning,
Community
Development
Department, Building
and Safety Division
970
Ordinance 1611